Finlay Carson
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Forestry does not operate to a political timescale but works over decades, yet as a consequence of uncertainty about funding and direction, fewer trees are being planted and there is less confidence across the sector. The decision to cut the forestry grant scheme by 40 per cent has had consequences.”
“That is not climate leadership; it is climate displacement, which involves exporting our emissions while importing food from elsewhere, often with higher carbon costs. Jim Fairlie: I am not quite sure what the member is talking about with regard to declining production in this country.”
“In responding to the climate change plan, witnesses warned that the right balance has not yet been struck between short-term emissions and long- term sustainable restoration.”
“We all recognise the reality and impacts of climate change. Emissions must fall, Scotland must improve climate resilience and we must protect our natural environment, so we support an affordable transition to net zero.”
“Our third Scottish national adaptation plan is our blueprint to build resilience to climate change in a way that is fair and equitable but which can also potentially save millions of pounds by preventing damage. Collaboration is at its heart, including collaboration with local government.”
“The problem is, we know that action needs to be taken but the Government keeps kicking the hard decisions into the long grass. There is no certainty, and there is a reducing budget. The same credibility gap that we have just heard from the minister’s response exists when it comes to technology and implementation.”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Finlay Carson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 12.
“I am also delighted that local authority councillors will consider resuming mechanical beach cleans in Wigtownshire. However, despite those efforts, the issue of marine litter remains one of the most pressing—and, to be frank, most disheartening—environmental challenges of our time. Each year, millions of tonnes of plastic and other waste material enter our seas, harming marine ecosystems, endangering wildlife and even threatening human health. The Marine Conservation Society’s “State of our beaches” 2024 report paints a stark picture: more than 10,000kg of litter, comprising more than 527,000 individual items, were removed from Scotland’s beaches last year. That is a 7.2 per cent increase on 2023, and it is well above the United Kingdom average.”
“Another stand-out initiative is the Solway Coast and Marine Project, which aims to restore vital coastal and shallow sea habitats all along all the 210km of the Dumfries and Galloway coastline, from Gretna to the Rhins of Galloway. That project, which is led by the Dumfries and Galloway Council environment team and the Solway Firth Partnership, is supported by NatureScot, the Scottish Government and the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Its mission is to restore salt marshes, seagrass beds, coastal woodlands and—last but no means least—native oyster beds, for which I am the Parliament’s nature champion. I must be one of the few nature champions who can actually eat the species that they are assigned to protect, and I wish the Solway Coast and Marine Project all the success in the future.”
“From the sand dunes of Sandyhills, the rugged sheltered bays of Carrick, the soft white sands of Mossyard, the dramatic cliffs of Drummore and the pebble coastline of Portpatrick, we have it all. Other beaches may be available, but if Marks and Spencer or Carlsberg did beaches, they would be the beaches of Galloway. As we heard from Kenneth Gibson, our ability to enjoy those natural treasures is thanks in no small part to the dedication of more than 4,000 volunteers who took part in beach cleans across Scotland in 2024—a 25 per cent increase on the previous year. In my constituency, groups such as ONUS—oceans need us—South West Scotland, are making a real difference. Just recently, a dozen volunteers tackled marine litter at Port Logan and along the coastline near Stranraer. Their efforts are nothing short of inspirational.”
“First, I congratulate my friend, Kenneth Gibson, on securing this important debate. It is refreshing to hear Mr Gibson talk fish, when normally he talks about the economy. It is often said that life’s a beach, and I am sure many of us have fond memories of digging our toes into the sand, building sandcastles that are destined to be washed away by the tide or braving the icy waters, to emerge with blue lips and goose bumps. Those simple, joyful moments are possible only because Scotland is blessed with some of the finest beaches in the world. Many of them are in Scotland’s most beautiful constituency: my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, which is home to some of the most beautiful beaches imaginable.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the net zero secretary has had with the rural affairs secretary regarding the potential environmental and biodiversity impact of the proposed Galloway national park. (S6O- 04627)”
“Given the continued vacuum in any policies that the Government has introduced, can the minister give an indication of when secondary legislation will be lodged to deliver some of the policies for farmers to undertake the just transition? Jim Fairlie: There is no vacuum. There is a route map, which the member is well aware of, because he sits on the committee that deals with the legislation that will be required in order for us to complete the route map. “Climate change action: policy package” (Land Use and Agriculture Measures) 8.”
“I have learned a lot in preparation for the debate. I will pick up with the local schools that I have mentioned to learn more about their progress and to congratulate them on their efforts and their participation in the Eco-Schools project to protect our planet. 17:13”
“Step 5 involves others in protecting the planet through collaboration, with school events, stalls in the community and actions with family and friends. Step 6 requires the eco-committee to monitor and evaluate its actions. That monitoring and evaluation helps pupils to understand and demonstrate the impact that has been made. That can be done before and after, using pictures, graphs or charts. Step 7 is the final step, which is the eco-code. It involves creating a mission statement and letting the world know about the school’s or the pupils’ commitment to protecting their planet. All of that good work can be uploaded into the eco-schools portal between 1 May and 31 July, so that a bid for a green flag award can be made. That is where the flag can be flown at the school, letting everyone know about the school’s commitment to the planet.”
“Step 2 is to complete an environmental review, which helps everyone to know how eco-friendly their school is and where improvement can be made. Step 3 is the biggest part and is the creation of an action plan. That can be done over the whole year, with the aim of reducing the carbon footprint to make the school greener. The proposals include swapping toys, creating bug hotels, planting vegetables and switching lights off in places where they are not needed or where rooms are not occupied. Some of the actions can be quite simple to take forward. Step 4 is to link the environmental work into the school curriculum across the year, so that it can be embedded as part of what we need to do to protect our planet.”
“I am sure that Emma Harper will not mind my joining her in celebrating the success of schools in Dumfries and Galloway, including the nursery that my two go to at the Johnston school in Kirkcudbright. Shawhead primary school won a special commendation for learning for sustainability. It went above and beyond in all the required categories when it came to eco-schools. That should be set out specifically. Emma Harper: It is absolutely great that Finlay Carson is on his feet, celebrating the schools that are participating in the Eco-Schools programme— well done. We do have some common ground across the chamber in some of our debates. There are seven simple steps in the framework for the programme. Step 1 is basically to create an eco-committee that the young people lead, with teacher support.”
“The EU must follow through on the treaty that it signed in 2020, which states that, after 2026, the issue of access to waters will become part of the annual negotiations on fisheries between the UK and the EU. Annual negotiations are the international norm. If EU states want to keep benefiting from our rich fishing grounds, that access must deliver clear and lasting benefits to Scotland’s fisheries. The Parliament must express its deep concern at the reported deal and stand firm in protecting Scotland’s fishing industry. Let us have an annual debate on fisheries to highlight the sector’s importance to Scotland’s economy and ensure that our fishing industry, both offshore and inshore, is not only protected but championed as a vital sector. 17:02”
“In 2023, SeaScope Fisheries Research Ltd, in partnership with others including the University of Glasgow and Marine Scotland science, carried out research on cockle stocks. The results have been very positive and a sustainable plan has been produced with partners from across business, academia and environmental organisations, but there has still not been a satisfactory response from the marine directorate on the next steps to reopen the fisheries. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will meet those representatives, or perhaps she will pull a cockle out of the bag today by informing us how we can move forward. The SNP has failed to make significant progress on improving inshore fisheries management, with the lack of scientific assessments hindering the development of these valued resources.”
“Scotland’s fishing industry lands two thirds of all the fish and shellfish that are caught in the UK each year, which makes it the UK’s powerhouse of seafood production. My home town of Kirkcudbright has been the centre of the Scottish scallop industry, with West Coast Sea Products leading the way. We must not overlook the importance of inshore fishing opportunities. Last week, when my colleague Tim Eagle and I met fishermen in Galloway, one of the topics that we discussed was cockle fishing—I can already see the cabinet secretary cringing. Before cockle fishing was prohibited by the SNP Government, at its peak in the early 1990s, the Solway produced more than 5,000 tonnes of cockles every year, which were worth more than £5 million to the local economy.”
“Today, a Scottish Fishermen’s Federation poll revealed that nearly nine out of 10 Scots believe that the UK should definitively control which vessels fish in its waters, and more than 80 per cent believe that the EU fleet should not be granted continued access to UK fishing grounds without tangible benefits being returned to Scottish skippers and crews. That means that 80 per cent of the people in this nation expect both of their Governments to stand up for those interests. The poll also shows that 86 per cent of Scots believe that any future UK-EU fisheries deal should place Scotland’s fishing industry at its heart. Younger Scots are often perceived as being more Eurocentric, but 65 per cent of them believe that Scotland’s fishing industry should be prioritised in any future UK-EU agreement.”
“The agreement for 2025 has secured 150,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for the UK. That represents a 15,000 tonne increase on 2024 and it ensures sustainable fishing practices and the long-term viability of the UK fishing industry. However, the new deal that is potentially being proposed by the UK Labour Administration represents a backward step for the sector, which we cannot allow to happen. Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, has pointed out the absurdity of the UK Government caving in to French demands for multiyear fisheries deals with fixed quotas. Such deals are not just a betrayal of our fishing industry; they are a betrayal of our national interests. Public support for our industry is overwhelming.”
“The motion is clear: it is a call to safeguard our coastal communities. Reports that the UK Labour Government might agree to a deal with the EU that enhances access for EU fishing vessels in UK waters are deeply concerning. Such a deal, which could result in multiyear access guarantees, threatens to undermine our fishing industry’s very future. Scotland’s fishing industry is hugely significant as it not only contributes to our national economy but also sustains our coastal towns and villages, and it is imperative that every effort is made to support the industry during trade negotiations. The existing fisheries deal between the EU and the UK, while not perfect, took our sector out of the hated CFP and has delivered increased access for UK fishermen to UK waters.”
“It is clear that we need public transport to be run in the public interest, and we can only really achieve that if we have public and community operators in that mix. This is a short debate, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject between now and the end of the parliamentary session. 16:15”
“We see that kind of leadership in councils from time to time. The conversation with COSLA is really important because it is clear that there are those in local authorities who need, and want, to tackle traffic congestion using a range of measures. I urge the Government to make progress in areas in which there is consensus. A regulatory review is looking at powers of road charging. We could be looking at simplifying the traffic regulation order process or decriminalising road offences. I think that there are areas of consensus among councils and the Government that we can use to make progress. I welcome the minister’s support for the re- regulation of buses. I would urge him to make that process as simple as possible.”
“We need to move away from going one step forward and one step back. We need to address the issues. This is not a new debate. Back in 2006, the first ever climate inquiry in this Parliament recommended road user charging. It set the Executive a timescale of 10 years to get it right— the Executive had until 2016 to bring in a fair system of road user charging. That date has passed and we are now nearly 10 years on from 2016—it is nearly 2026 and we still have no more progress in Scotland on road user charging. It will take calm heads and cross-party working in order to make progress on this. Perhaps it will take the kind of leadership that was shown by Douglas Lumsden when he was a councillor: behaving rationally, taking your party-political hat off and looking at the issues that need to be addressed.”
“That is why we have a transport hierarchy and it should be guiding investment. When the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee this week, it stated clearly that competition from cars was the primary influence on bus use. Unless we tackle that issue and level the playing field, we will not see a rapid increase in bus use. Brian Whittle: Will the member give way? Mark Ruskell: I do not have time, unfortunately. Choices need to be made. I ask the minister to reflect on the construction of the cross-Tay link road: £120 million is being invested in that transport infrastructure to benefit motorists. However, there are already starting to be congestion issues around Perth and Bridgend, which that bridge was meant to resolve.”
“I give the example of bus use. Free bus travel for under-22s is a fantastic scheme and I know that the minister backs it. He recognises the benefit that it has brought to young people. It has also increased bus use by 29 million journeys. However, at the same time as we have been rolling out that successful scheme, we have seen bus journeys decline by 20 million because of road congestion and the failure to tackle traffic congestion, which we are discussing this afternoon. That is undermining the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been invested in bus users and the bus network every year. We need to see what, back in the day, was called policy coherence—that is, where one policy is not undermining another one. We cannot have a transport policy based only on having more of everything that everybody wants. Choices have to be made.”
“It is a necessity in order to meet our climate targets and to improve transport for all in Scotland. The road ahead requires balance, supporting behavioural change with investment and encouraging greener choices through affordability while maintaining our road infrastructure to ensure the safety of all our constituents. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. I call Mark Ruskell to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 16:10 Mark Ruskell: We have been subject to a blizzard of local press releases and election pitches this afternoon. I agree with Paul Sweeney that the motion that we are debating is somewhat “facile and disingenuous”. We need a more measured debate on the subject. I ask the minister to acknowledge that, on transport policy, we are taking one step forward at a time and then, often, one step back.”
“Unfortunately, the scheme scrapping peak rail fares did not produce the desired shift in travel habits. However, that should be a message to the Government to continue to work to incentivise such a shift. Progress must also reach our rural communities. In rural Scotland, often a car is not a convenience but a necessity. Bus services are not so frequent and passenger satisfaction is lower than it is in the central belt. If we are serious about reducing car use, we must work with local authorities to invest in and improve rural bus routes to ensure that rural communities remain connected. Public transport is a lifeline for some of those communities. Describing the Scottish Government’s aim to reduce car use as a war is a gross mischaracterisation. It is not a war.”
“The Scottish Government has also made progress with the country’s electric vehicle charging network. We now have the highest number of public EV charging devices per head of population of any UK nation. However, electric vehicles remain expensive, especially during a cost of living crisis. That is why we must focus on developing more incentives, such as affordable EV loans, to help families to switch to an eco-friendly alternative. Public transport is key in reaching our net zero targets and for our economy. We have already seen the benefits of a public interest approach to transport. ScotRail’s nationalisation has delivered major improvements, including higher passenger satisfaction and fewer compensation claims compared with other UK rail companies.”
“Will the member give way? Colin Beattie: I am sorry; I have only four minutes. As we try to change travel behaviours, we must take the public with us. We cannot allow the narrative that we are engaged in a war against the public’s interests to lie. Instead, we must prove that such action will benefit lives. The Conservative Party’s opposition to low- emission zones is deeply irresponsible and not in the least surprising. Let us be clear: no member would let children drink dirty water, so why should we let them breathe polluted air, especially after a study by the University of Dundee found that respiratory admissions for children were significantly higher in areas with poor air quality? Placing politics above public health would be shameful, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has shown leadership in this area.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what funding will be available to help infrastructure projects in south-west Scotland. (S6O-04580)”
“In closing, I thank Marie McNair again for securing today’s debate, and I pay tribute to charities such as Cahonas Scotland and Cancer Research UK. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Paul Sweeney, who joins us remotely. 17:33”
“Does the member agree that raising awareness is often about the blokes in the pub being able to joke about it, as Edward Mountain did, and that that is how we can get the message out about how important it is that we actually go and get checked? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Ms Haughey. Clare Haughey: In response to Mr Carson, I say that I certainly hope so. Obviously, not being a bloke in the pub, I am not privy to a lot of those conversations, but as the mother of three sons, I would certainly encourage them to talk about their health and to do checks regularly. We have heard about Cahonas Scotland’s “Check yer bawballs” campaign at Christmas, which has ensured that men get talking about testicular cancer and has, more importantly, got them checking.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Clare Haughey: I will in one second. First, I just want to clarify something about Alan Stubbs. It was a hormone that was picked up in that drugs test—it was not about any substances that he should not have had in his body. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am sure that he will be very grateful for the clarification. Finlay Carson: I thank the member for taking my intervention. I have been there and done that—I went for the examination; it is very straightforward and it certainly gives peace of mind. Men often talk about things tangentially in the pub, such as how many times we have to go to the toilet when we get to a certain age, and they are not embarrassed about that. However, testicular cancer probably goes just that little bit further.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Fergus Ewing: I will take an intervention from Mr Carson. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You will not, Mr Ewing, because you will be winding up very shortly. Fergus Ewing: I will wind up then—I say sorry to Mr Carson. UK Steel has put forward very clear ideas for a two-way CFD that would peg our energy price to that in Germany and France, and for the compensation levels that are currently provided to business for the network costs, which are the other element, other than wholesale costs, to be equalised. That is a solution and a prognosis. Let us all, in all the main parties that are serious about the matter, work together to deliver such a solution for Scotland and Britain. 15:43”
“The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee agrees that there is a place for framework legislation where the legislative powers will be required for the long term, but flexibility is required as to how they will be exercised.”
“It defined framework legislation as “primary legislation which sets out broad powers with the details of how these powers would be used and implemented to be set out at a later date either through secondary legislation or through other documents to be laid in Parliament.” The reason for using that broader definition in our submission is that it encompasses primary legislation that requires Scottish ministers to lay a document before Parliament that may be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval. I understand why the DPLR Committee’s inquiry focused on primary and secondary legislation, but from a broader parliamentary and subject committee perspective, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee feels that other laid documents that set out the detail of Government policy are equally important.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the DPLR Committee’s recent report on framework legislation and its impact on parliamentary business and, crucially, effective committee scrutiny. I should also say that I was pleased to give evidence, along with Kenneth Gibson, for the inquiry. I will begin with a quick summary of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s submission to the inquiry. As Stuart McMillan has already set out, the DPLR Committee outlined what framework legislation is as part of its inquiry, but I should point out that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee used a slightly broader definition.”
“The cabinet secretary and I recently attended a round-table meeting to start conversations about what the system should look like and whether there is a place for such crops in”
“Genetically modified crops play a critical role in sustainable and regenerative agriculture by enhancing crop resilience to pests, diseases and environmental stresses. That reduces the need for chemical inputs such as pesticides and herbicides, thereby minimising the environmental impact. In addition, GM crops can improve yields and nutritional quality, thereby contributing to food security and sustainable farming practices. Will the minister update the Parliament on discussions with stakeholders on introducing legislation regarding GM crops? Will he give an indication of timelines setting out the way forward? Jim Fairlie: I am surprised that Finlay Carson is talking about GM crops, because that is an entirely different conversation from the one that we have been having about gene-edited crops.”
“We must strike the balance between reforming land management and supporting rural Scotland, and the bill in its current form fails to do so. I urge members to oppose the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 and to work towards a more equitable and sustainable solution for our rural communities. 16:22”
“Tenant farming policy must focus on encouraging landowners to make land available to new and existing tenants instead of deterring landowners from doing so, and legislating to retrospectively amend tenancy agreements to change resumption clauses will not move the sector in the right direction. Although a majority of committee members supported the general principles of the bill, it is clear that part 1 risks not delivering its intended outcomes. The approach is seen as potentially burdensome and bureaucratic, and the land size threshold that operates across the bill should be reconsidered. The committee’s concerns about the lotting and resumption provisions highlight the need for a thorough review and significant amendments.”
“As drafted, the bill would hold up sales to sitting tenants or local businesses. The lotting provisions are both alarming and unworkable. They could lead to taxpayers being lumbered with substantial compensation payments and, at the same time, could wreak havoc in the land market and kill Scotland’s natural capital investment market. There is no demand for those provisions, and they must be scrapped. There are serious concerns that part 2 of the bill risks discouraging landowners from letting land, which is contrary to its aims. Decades of excessive legislation have created that challenge, and adding to the imbalance in regulation will not solve it.”
“That burden would inhibit their ability to continue delivering those essential services. Research is clear that scale is a key enabling factor in the delivery of multiple benefits that are considered to be of national importance. The bill’s use of scale as the metric for fragmenting partnerships of land ownership is not the same as tackling concentration and risks making it harder to deliver those benefits. It might well be possible to meet the Scottish Government’s original objectives of greater transparency and community engagement without inflicting the damage to rural businesses at taxpayers’ expense that the bill threatens. Extensive provision for community ownership already exists, and the need for prior notification of all sales over the threshold will lead only to further costs and delay, both for businesses and the public purse.”
“However, the commission’s own evidence suggested that the issue lies in concentrated ownership in specific areas rather than in the scale of ownership itself. Tenant farming, which is a key component of Scottish agriculture, is also at risk. The bill introduces changes to the right-to-buy process for agricultural holdings and to the provisions on resumption and compensation for game damage. Although those changes are aimed at improving the system, they could lead to disputes and further complications in the Scottish Land Court. SLE has highlighted that the bill would place an unwarranted bureaucratic burden on landowners, who are at the forefront of tackling climate change, restoring nature, producing food, providing jobs and growing the local economy.”
“Such changes could have far- reaching consequences that we must carefully consider, and NFU Scotland supports ensuring that tenants are left no better and no worse off as well as the avoidance of retrospective changes to agricultural tenancies in order to maintain confidence in land letting. The background to the bill stems from the Scottish Government’s definition of land reform as the on-going process of modifying, reforming and modernising land ownership and distribution. Although to some the intentions might be noble, the execution leaves much to be desired. The Scottish Land Commission’s investigation into large-scale and concentrated land ownership in Scotland concluded that concentrated land ownership is causing damage to communities.”
“The cost and administrative burden of preparing and publishing those plans must be justified by clear benefits, but that justification is currently lacking. Additionally, although SLE supports improving transparency of land ownership and use, it believes that changes must be made to reduce costs and increase the associated timescales. NFU Scotland also emphasises maintaining the 3,000 hectare threshold to avoid burdening smaller landholdings with unnecessary costs and bureaucracy. Furthermore, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has raised significant concerns about changes to agricultural holdings. The bill’s efforts to widen the scope of compensation and liabilities for landowners when game damage a tenant’s crops raise issues of fairness, legal complexity and practical enforcement.”
“SLE’s chief executive, Sarah- Jane Laing, has warned of an era of “wanton damage” to our rural economy if the bill is passed without substantial amendments. We cannot afford to ignore those warnings. NFU Scotland has raised concerns about the bill’s potential impact on Scottish agriculture. Although we understand the Government’s desire to share the benefits of land ownership, the proposals for land market regulation could severely compromise farming. Economies of scale have necessitated larger farms so that they can survive, and the bill threatens to undermine that foundation. The bill’s focus on large-scale holdings, particularly the requirement for land management plans, is another area of contention. The Agricultural Law Association has pointed out the burdensome nature of those plans on large landowners.”
“I will start my contribution in the same vein as Michael Matheson. I remember our late Presiding Officer, Sir Alex Ferguson, warning me when I first took up my post as an MSP to avoid land reform and deer management. Sadly, I am standing here talking about land reform, and in the coming weeks, I will be dealing with deer management in our discussions on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. It has become evident that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill poses a significant threat and will add to the damage that has already been inflicted on rural Scotland by the SNP Government. First, let us consider its economic implications. Scottish Land & Estates has voiced its apprehensions, highlighting that the bill would impose “disproportionate and unfair legislative proposals” on rural businesses.”
“If he is, indeed, doing so, why are industry leaders always wrong while the minister is always right when it comes to concerns about the IT system’s limitations? Jim Fairlie: I refute the basis of the question. It is not the case that the industry is always wrong and the minister is always right—the fact is that we have a system that we know is working. We know that the system is getting the payments out. We know that farmers are being paid and they are being paid ahead of time. I will repeat that all day, if that is what I have to do. This attack is based purely on something that the Tories have decided. They have an unwarranted and unjustified attack line on the Government. The payments continue to get made. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical question time. I will allow a moment or two for front benchers to organise.”
“At the 12 March meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, concerns were raised about the lack of effective implementation and about the constraints that the outdated information technology system created. Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland stated: “The biggest single constraint on policy development and, therefore, its implementation ... is the ability to deliver. There is a fundamental issue with the IT system and everything that goes with that.” With reference to future policy, Kate Rowell, chair of Quality Meat Scotland, said: “Unfortunately—and this brings us back to the computer system—there seems to be no way of implementing that list.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 12 March 2025; c 20, 13.] The minister continually tells us that he listens to the industry.”
“It is regrettable that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands did not support the committee’s proposal for mandatory reporting, on the basis that it would be an additional burden on the sector.”
“The first is to commission more research into the environmental causes of mortality to help the industry get ahead of future problems as they emerge. Secondly, we want to achieve greater transparency by enhancing how mortality data is collected and published by the Scottish Government, through the introduction of mandatory reporting requirements. Finally, where farms are consistently failing to control mortality at their sites, the committee believes that the regulations must secure improvements in performance. That is why we have called on the Scottish Government to provide new powers for regulators to limit or halt production at sites that record persistently high mortality rates, and for those criteria to be set out in collaboration with the industry.”
“We were disappointed that the industry had been unable to significantly reduce its overall mortality rate, which remained roughly the same as it was in 2018, at around 25 per cent. However, I was encouraged by recent figures from Salmon Scotland that suggested that there would be a drop in mortality rate to about 18 per cent this year. The committee will be watching eagerly to see whether that progress can be sustained. We also heard that the operating conditions for fish farmers have become harder in recent years as a result of the emergence of new environmental challenges, such as micro jellyfish and other harmful impacts of rising sea temperatures from climate change. The committee suggested three interventions that could help to support a further reduction in farm-fish mortality over the longer term.”
“Overall, our committee found that, although positive steps have been taken on some of the key findings of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee report, in most areas, the sector still has a way to go to realise the ambitions that that report set out. It is evident that recommended changes to regulation and enforcement of the industry have not been taken forward with the urgency that was called for in 2018, and we believe that that presents a barrier to securing the long-term viability of the industry. At the end of my contribution, I will set out some of the steps that our committee believes need to be taken, but for now I will touch on a selection of our report’s key findings. The industry’s record on fish mortality rightly attracted a lot of scrutiny by the committee.”