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 3 of 12.
“A list of concerns that a person is apparently not allowed to have might dissuade them from honestly sharing and addressing their concerns, if they feel that there is a risk that that might make them ineligible for an assisted death. Brian Whittle: Does Liam McArthur accept that, over the past few decades, the doctor-patient relationship has changed significantly? That relationship has evolved over time and it is much rarer for a doctor to know a patient these days, so it will be much harder for the doctor to assess coercion. Liam McArthur: I understand the concern that Brian Whittle raises. In the processes that are put in place in the bill, there are safeguards so that, if the understanding of the broader context of the individual patient is felt to be inadequate, that would be required to be explored further.”
“The assessing doctors will not be able to grant eligibility to continue the application under the bill unless they are satisfied of those factors. Making a statement to that effect in the first declaration is not necessary and would add no benefit of safety. Understanding the issues requires detailed conversation and exploration with a trained professional, for which the bill and regulations will provide through the assessing doctors and, where appropriate, other medical and relevant professionals. Requiring a statement detailing what might be influencing a person’s decision would also not be useful and would risk policing later open and honest conversations between doctor and patient. As I have said in the debates on previous groups, people’s motivations and choices at the end of life are complex and multifaceted.”
“The deadly consequences for those women would be final, and that is not a risk that I am willing to take. Liam McArthur: Michael Marra’s amendment 144 seems, in the first paragraph, to broadly replicate what is already set out in schedule 1 to the bill, as introduced by section 4, regarding first declarations. The second paragraph in the amendment relates to a person indicating that making the declaration “is not influenced by unmet palliative care, social care, housing, financial or caregiving needs”. I am not convinced that that would add anything meaningful to the process that the bill will already require. That a person’s decision to seek assistance is voluntary and free from coercion will have to be ascertained by the assessing doctors through detailed conversations in the assessment stages.”
“We also know that domestic abuse does not end with a diagnosis of illness, with disability or with older age. Those who intend to vote for the bill should be clear about what level of risk they are willing to accept to meet the aim of legislating to allow some people to end their life early. I am not confident that we can prevent coercion even if all the amendments in the group are agreed to. That is not about putting the issue in the too- difficult pile—we should never put anything in that pile—but some things should be in the too- dangerous pile. I strongly agree with experts Dr Anni Donaldson and Isabelle Kerr. The truth is that, for some women, the danger that the bill becomes another lethal tool to be wielded by an abusive partner is real.”
“Members will understand the impact of a terminal illness diagnosis and will know that the family dynamics around that are not always ideal. The Parliament introduced groundbreaking domestic abuse legislation and is well versed in the complexities around coercion and the patterns of behaviour that make it so. Given that, everyone in the chamber should understand three things very clearly: just how far from operating in an ideal world a woman being coercively controlled by her partner is; the challenge in gathering evidence of coercion, even for experts; and therefore how limited any safeguards that are put in place can be for those women. We know that women who are abused by their partners are at serious risk of being killed and of dying by suicide as a result of domestic abuse. Michael Marra mentioned Kimberly Milne from Dundee.”
“I want to acknowledge what Michael Marra said and to be honest with members: I am not entirely convinced that we can legislate to protect people against coercion, but, like everyone with an amendment in the group, I have attempted it. The first point that I wish to make is about safeguarding. Hearing something described as containing robust safeguards can go a long way to providing reassurance, but when the stakes are as high as they are in the bill, it warrants further interrogation. Any so-called safeguards are statements about what should happen in an ideal world to protect people from harm, but I think that we would all acknowledge the real-world stresses and pressures of clinical practice that our medics face.”
“I call Ruth Maguire to speak to amendment 93 and other amendments in the group. Ruth Maguire: Consent, choice, free will and autonomy are principles that should exist in all our lives, but they are not experienced equally by all. They are not something that the estimated one in three Scottish women who live with domestic abuse and coercive control are likely to recognise in their lives. The amendments in the group see that reality and take seriously the real danger of coercion. My amendment 93 is an attempt to strengthen safeguarding at the point of the second declaration. It recognises that coercion can be direct, indirect or internal, and requires each to be actively considered.”
“Members from across the chamber will have come to their own conclusions on the broader question of assisted dying. I respect, even if I disagree with, colleagues who have come to a different view from mine. However, regardless of where we stand on the principle of the bill, we should have a shared, common and committed understanding that any legislation that we pass is as tightly drawn as possible. Amendments 177 and 180 would do that. The wording is important, so I encourage members to support the amendments in my name. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We are nearing the agreed time limit for debate, so, under rule 9.8.4A(c), I consider it necessary to allow the debate on the group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid debate being unreasonably curtailed.”
“My concern is that, without the clarification that my amendments would provide, the legislation risks leaving people and the motivations behind a request for assisted dying unclear. In a matter of such profound consequence, we cannot be unclear—we must say it directly. The amendments seek to ensure that eligibility under the bill is tied directly and especially to the experience of terminal illness. They would reinforce the boundary that supporters of the bill have said exists; they simply say what the member in charge of the bill has said over and over, as have others. The decision on the bill that we have been asked to consider is one of the most serious that any Parliament can take. It is the most serious decision that I have made in my 10 years in the chamber. It concerns matters of life, death and protection.”
“Interestingly, about two and a half years ago, my father had terminal cancer. He had never required any practical help throughout his life. One of his biggest fears—one of the things that he kept talking about—was whether he was a burden to the carers and whether he had been a burden to my late mother. Such feelings are profoundly human. They deserve compassion, care and support, but they should never become a reason why someone feels that their life ought to end sooner. If the Parliament chooses to legislate in an area as grave as assisted dying, we have a duty to ensure that the safeguards are not only well intentioned but robust and beyond doubt. On the idea that there is no problem with coercion and that no one is going to be forced or pressured, I note that the amendments can lie dormant; they can just be there as protection.”
“That is what my amendments seek to do. They would ensure that a request for assisted dying must be made solely as a result of the individual’s terminal illness itself, rather than as a consequence of the pressures or circumstances that may arise at the end of their life. The final stages of life can be extraordinarily hard for many people. Individuals who are terminally ill might experience not only physical suffering but a range of emotional, social and practical pressures. They might fear becoming a burden to those whom they love. They might worry about the emotional strain placed on family members. They might feel isolated or dependent in ways that they have never experienced before. They might even feel that their continued care places demands on already-stretched services or resources.”
“At their core, those amendments seek to reinforce a principle that I believe that most members across the chamber would agree is fundamental: that any requests for existing assisted dying under the provisions of the bill must arise solely as a consequence of a person’s terminal illness and not for any other reason. The bill has consistently been presented to Parliament and to the public as legislation that is limited in its scope. We have heard today about amendments that would limit that scope further. The bill has been described as applying only to competent adults who are terminally ill and where suffering arises from that condition. If that is indeed the intention of the bill, I believe that it is entirely reasonable for the legislation to say so, and say so explicitly. If it says it on the tin, that is what is in the tin.”
“I have to say that I asked both the member responsible for the bill and the Scottish Government to make suggestions on how to address my concerns in this area at stage 2, and I am yet to have those concerns alleviated. I point out that I will be discussing advance directives in relation to my later amendments, which links in directly with how we could tackle the issue of coercion. However, I would ask that members consider supporting amendments 174, 187, 189, 198, 209, 182 and 305 in this group, as I am trying to tighten up the rules around coercion. Jeremy Balfour: I will speak to amendments 177 and 180 in my name.”
“My amendments 174, 187, 189, 198 and 209 would create a mechanism for review, independent of medical professionals, for use in cases in which people who are close to the patient, be they family, named friends or carers, suspect coercion. The reason why I picked the 10-day period is that it is modelled on the similar approach to the independent assessment for organ donation. Amendment 182 would provide that reports are referred to the medical profession or the police where appropriate, and amendment 305 would give ministers the flexible powers to bring forward the model. Those provisions would be triggered only when those close to the patient expressed that concern. The 10-day reporting time is also an effort not to prolong the suffering of a person who wishes to access assisted dying.”
“Although GPs might already be trained to spot coercion, it used to be that the relationship between GP and patient was enduring and they knew each other well, but that is becoming increasingly rare. The same could be said for social work. Lorna Slater raised a point about which way coercion goes, noting that it is not all about coercion to take part—there may also be coercion not to take part. That is where my amendments sit. My concern is that an individual who potentially has a moral or personal reason to oppose the decision of a person who has made an assisted dying declaration could use the police and court system to delay the process through a protracted investigation resulting from an allegation of coercion.”
“I also thank my colleagues on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for the way in which we have managed to work together. We have advance knowledge of coercion, which we are talking about today, given that we have rehearsed that issue in committee, both in developing our report and at stage 2. 19:45 I have listened to Michael Marra and Paul O’Kane speaking on the potential for GPs to spot coercion. I think that GPs are already trained to spot coercion, as are social workers. It occurs to me that one of the things at the back of this bill is that, whatever happens, and whether it passes or not, it shines a light on many other aspects of healthcare. I will highlight one of the things that worry me with regard to coercion.”
“More importantly, the core of my amendments in this group are amendments 27, 160 and 33, which are important safeguards. As deficient as they might be, as Mr Marra pointed out, it is important that we put something in to offer some form of protection. The Deputy Presiding Officer : I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 174 and other amendments in the group. Brian Whittle: I know that we are nearly five hours in, but this is my first opportunity to say to my friend and colleague Liam McArthur that I really appreciate the way in which he has taken the bill through Parliament and interacted with all colleagues and MSPs. If we all took legislation through Parliament in that light, I think that it would be a better place indeed.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer : Very briefly, Mr Harvie, and then please conclude, Mr Doris. Patrick Harvie: It is a question on the group of amendments that remove reference to “by any other person.” If we were talking about the concept of pressure, I would understand why people might feel pressure from a range of different sources or circumstances in their lives. However, the current bill talks about being “coerced or pressured”, and surely the use of those words implies intentionality: if not by a person, then by whom? Bob Doris: We discussed that in great detail, in relation to indirect pressures, in the debate on my earlier amendments. That case has been made. Removing the words “by any other person” adds something to the bill. Nothing is lost, and it is beneficial.”
“However, there is concern that coercion in other forms, such as those that we have discussed—this links back to indirect pressures—might not be fully recognised using the current terminology. Amendments 24, 25, 35, 36, 41, 76, 77, 80, 82 and 84—I simply list them; I will not, the Deputy Presiding Officer will be relieved to hear, speak to them individually—therefore all simply delete the words “by any other person” each time that the bill mentions a person being “coerced or pressured”, in order to reflect that not all pressures arise from other people. I believe that those amendments are worth while, but I again remind members that the key substantive amendments— Patrick Harvie: Will the member take an intervention? Bob Doris: I was just finishing off, Mr Harvie.”
“Bob Doris: I think that the positions of both Finlay Carson and Rona Mackay can be encompassed if they support amendments 27, 160 and 33, which are the scaffolding to ensure that we put safeguards into the bill, as far as we can, in a proportionate way. If coercion does not exist, as Rona Mackay suggests, let us put in the safeguards anyway; and, if it does exist, let us make sure that we absolutely put them in. Both of those interventions highlight the need for members to support all three amendments. Finally, I have a swathe of amendments in the group that seek to amend references to coercion. There are repeated references in the bill to a person not being “coerced or pressured by any other person”.”
“I had no intention of speaking in this debate. However, the idea that coercion does not exist is very naive. I will give an example. I will remember, to the day that I die, sitting along with my mother and a consultant, as she was waiting to get her treatment for cancer. The consultant said, very flippantly, “I presume that it will be DNR”, in a way that suggested to my mother that, as he was an expert, he was recommending that she sign up for a “Do not resuscitate” order. That was the first that she heard of it, and that was coercion, because he gave her the sense that it was his opinion and suggestion that she should sign up for a “Do not resuscitate” order. That is why I cannot support this bill, because it will happen—and it will happen regularly.”
“I turn first to our findings on the agriculture chapter. The Scottish Government has set out in the draft CCP that it intends to achieve most of its reductions in agricultural emissions through its reforms to support payments. Many stakeholders agreed that changes to requirements for agricultural subsidies would help to incentivise farmers to transition to more sustainable and climate-friendly practices. However, the committee also heard concerns from the industry that there was still a lack of clarity around the Scottish Government’s reform programme, which it believed was holding back efforts to decarbonise the sector in the short term. The sector was particularly concerned about delays to the first rural support plan, which will set out the Scottish Government’s policy priorities for agriculture support over the next five years.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to set out the findings of our scrutiny of the agriculture and land use chapters of the draft climate change plan. The committee began its scrutiny of the plan by taking evidence at meetings in early January. We heard from a range of stakeholders, including academics and non-governmental organisations with experience and expertise in agriculture, peatlands and forestry, as well as representatives of the agriculture and forestry sectors. To conclude our evidence taking, we heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and her officials later that month. On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to our scrutiny of the draft CCP and the clerks who were involved in the preparation of our report.”
“I also represent an island and rural constituency, and I have been clear that health boards must provide the best support that is possible for women during their pregnancy journey. ScotWind (Audit Scotland Investigation) 3”
“The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, the former public health minister and the former health secretary are all in the chamber. They have heard over and over about the issues in Stranraer. We have held an independent inquiry, and three independent clinicians have suggested that midwife-led births should carry on in Stranraer, but that suggestion was ignored by the health board. The task force provides yet another review of a review. When will the Government start to take action and put women’s safety first? Jenni Minto: The Scottish Government puts women’s health and safety at the centre of the decision-making process. As I have said in previous responses to Mr Carson, the decision on Stranraer was made by NHS Dumfries and Galloway.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how its draft budget 2026-27 will ensure meaningful infrastructure improvements in the south of Scotland. (S6O-05536)”
“No celebration of those achievements would be complete without mentioning the Stranraer oyster festival, which will run from 11 to 13 September and draws around 30,000 visitors each year. It is a vibrant showcase of our marine ecology, heritage and, of course, outstanding food. I know that the cabinet secretary, having visited on at least one occasion, will agree that the wonderfully welcoming folk of Stranraer will ensure that visitors have the time of their lives there. 18:19”
“Torrance and Carson might seem like an unlikely team, but oyster beds and seagrass act powerfully together as nature’s tools for improving biodiversity, water quality and climate resilience. One major example of what that kind of restoration can achieve is the historic return of native oysters to the Firth of Forth after more than a century. The project will see 30,000 oysters reintroduced, creating a new reef that will support marine life and improve water quality. As the Scottish Parliament’s nature champion for oyster beds, I wish that initiative every success and hope that it will mirror the remarkable achievements of Loch Ryan, one of the country’s largest and healthiest native oyster beds.”
“That work is increasingly being supported by wider environmental initiatives, including the Solway Coast and Marine Project, which brings together scientists, local communities, the fishing industry and conservation partners to restore and protect the habitats that underpin coastal health. Oyster recovery is central to that work, but so too is restoring and protecting David Torrance’s seagrass meadows, which sit alongside many of our oyster beds. Seagrass, as we have heard, is one of the most effective natural carbon sinks in the UK and provides crucial nursery habitats for fish and invertebrates. Healthier oyster beds improve water clarity, allowing more sunlight to reach the seabed which, in turn, enables seagrass to grow and thrive.”
“Native oysters are remarkable ecosystem engineers. Each oyster can filter around 200 litres of water per day, improving water quality and supporting the health of the marine environment. They also act as an important blue carbon store, with studies showing that oyster habitats can hold up to 17.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare, per year. Despite dramatic declines elsewhere across Europe, caused by overfishing, habitat loss and disease, the Loch Ryan oyster bed has thrived thanks to generations of sustainable stewardship. Its disease-free and genetically strong population makes Loch Ryan a vital source of stock for restoration projects across Scotland and a true jewel in my constituency.”
“I thank John Mason for bringing this debate to the chamber. I have been saddled with many titles over the years, some complimentary and some less so, and the knighthood and the trip to Holyrood or Buckingham palace are still somewhere in the pipeline. However, one title that I am genuinely proud of, particularly given my strong links to Stranraer, is that I am the nature champion for the native oyster bed. I value the role enormously, not least because I am one of the few nature champions who can sustainably eat what my habitat produces because my constituency is home to one of the most important native oyster beds anywhere in Europe. Beneath the waters of Loch Ryan lies Scotland’s last wild commercially harvested native oyster bed, a site of exceptional ecological and national significance.”
“Of course, the Scottish Government cannot influence that, as it is up to the REM providers. However, vessels can use alternative providers, as long as the equipment meets the technical specifications. If Finlay Carson writes to me, so that I can look into any issues that he is hearing about directly, I will follow up with a more detailed response. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 7 has not been lodged. Tree Planting (2025-26 Targets) 8.”
“Given that members of the Scottish scallop fleet report that they still have no access to the REM data that is gathered on their own vessels, despite being told that it would support and improve their operations, and given that the cost of maintaining REM equipment is rising year on year, what assurances can the Government give that the system will deliver any practical benefit to fishers? When will the scallop fleet finally be given access to its own data? Mairi Gougeon: It is my understanding that members of the scallop fleet can access their data through the REM equipment on the vessels. However, if there is an issue, I would appreciate it if Finlay Carson could follow up with me, so that I can look at it in more detail. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the cost of REM systems.”
“The people of Galloway and the rest of rural Scotland deserve fairness, respect and the right to shape the future of a place that they call home, and I will continue to stand with them and speak for them every step of the way. 16:54”
“I say this to those in Galloway who feel unheard, overlooked or simply exhausted by the constant onslaught of proposals: your concerns are legitimate; you are right to demand clarity and limits; and you are absolutely right to insist that your voices be heard on future development in our region. Galloway has already powered Scotland for nearly a century; no one can accuse Galloway of not doing its bit. We will continue to play our part in Scotland’s energy future, but we will no longer accept being treated to Scotland’s energy dumping ground. Scotland’s new Government must bring an end to the era of limitless unco- ordinated development. Until then, rural Scotland will keep pushing back, and rightly so.”
“It is about whether rural Scotland’s voice carries the same weight as urban Scotland’s interests. It is about whether Government sees rural communities as partners or simply as places where decisions can be imposed because the population is dispersed and the political cost is low. We can have a strong energy future and expand infrastructure responsibly, but we cannot do so credibly unless the people who host that infrastructure are respected, included and empowered right from the start. Let me be clear: the people in Galloway are not standing in the way of Scotland’s future—they are standing up for their own. They are demanding fairness and a proportionate and fair planning system that recognises the cumulative burden that they already carry. They are asking for balance, not endless expansion, and for partnership, not imposition.”
“How much infrastructure does Scotland actually need? Where should that go and where should it not go? What protections will prevent overconcentration in particular regions? How will cumulative impacts be honestly assessed? How will benefits be fairly distributed? Until those questions are answered, calls for a moratorium are entirely justified. Groups in Galloway such as Hands Off Our Hills, Galloway Without Pylons and the Glengap Community Group, along with dedicated individuals such as Paul Swift and Elaine and Trevor Proctor, have shown remarkable leadership and professionalism. They have informed neighbours, analysed proposals and built constructive, evidence-based campaigns. Their voices should be valued, not sidelined. This debate is ultimately about democracy.”
“Communities face thousands of pages of environmental assessments and technical documents, often with only weeks to respond. Many residents feel that consultations are not genuine exercises in listening but performances that are carried out because the rules require it. When people are spoken at, rather than spoken with, trust collapses. Trust matters— it is the foundation of any major national transition. If we want communities to host infrastructure, they must be treated from the outset as partners, not as obstacles. That is part and parcel of a just transition. Scotland urgently needs a clear national energy strategy, not another brochure for high-level ambitions. We need a real plan with maps, limits, sequencing and transparent reasoning—a plan that answers the questions that rural communities have been asking for years.”
“But we cannot support limitless development with no clear end point, no assurances of fairness, and no understanding of where the burden will fall next.” However, the Government continues to rely on a planning framework that many find inaccessible and unbalanced. Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 is repeatedly cited as a barrier to genuine local influence. It centralises decision making, reduces the weight of local authority views and creates the perception that, once a project has reached a certain size, addressing community sentiment becomes a procedural tick-box exercise. In addition, the Scottish Government is now blocking constituents from objecting by email. Local authorities are overwhelmed by numerous complex applications. They lack the staff, the specialist expertise and the time that is required for rigorous scrutiny.”
“They unite around a simple message: rural communities are being treated as passive observers, not active partners. Inspired by that movement, a south of Scotland convention is now emerging, too. Community councils across the Borders—and, shortly, in Dumfries and Galloway, too—have joined forces. Those communities are calling, respectfully and democratically, for a moratorium on new large- scale energy infrastructure until a strategy is published, and I join them in that call. It is not about being obstructive or about nimbyism—it is responsible citizenship. People are saying, “We will engage. We will play our part.”
“SP Energy Networks rejected undergrounding in the most visually sensitive areas and, although the independent reporter recommended refusal, the Scottish Government approved the upgrade regardless. For some, the process became so opaque that they sought judicial review simply in order to have their voices heard. That should be a warning. When ordinary citizens feel that their only remaining avenue is the courts, it reveals not just planning failure but democratic failure. Galloway is not alone. In the Highlands, the community council convention of the Highland Council area has brought together community councils, representing tens of thousands of people who feel overwhelmed by cumulative impacts and ignored by the planning system.”
“Galloway has powered Scotland for generations, but recent years have brought something entirely different: not strategic modernisation but a disjointed surge of proposals arriving simultaneously, and assessed in isolation. Residents now face multiple wind farm applications, large-scale battery storage compounds, solar farms, new substations, construction and traffic disruption causing damage to our roads, and miles of monster pylons and cables. That is not abstract—it reshapes the places where people live, work and raise families, yet communities feel that they have had little meaningful say. A clear example is the Kendoon to Tongland power line upgrade. Initially presented as a straightforward modernisation, it evolved through several iterations in which the scale, route and justification were changed.”
“The Scottish Conservatives, like our rural constituents, recognise that Scotland needs energy infrastructure. They are not anti- development or anti-renewables; they are pro- fairness, pro-transparency and pro-democracy, but they see a system that is currently failing on all three counts. Nowhere is that clearer than in Galloway. My constituency has hosted extensive energy infrastructure for decades. We have Windy Standard, Scotland’s first consented onshore wind farm; Robin Rigg, Scotland’s first offshore wind farm; and the Galloway hydro scheme, which was the country’s first major integrated hydro scheme and one of the world’s earliest all-river systems, and which is still producing power nearly a century later.”
“I welcome the opportunity to bring the debate to the chamber, and I thank colleagues from across the political divide for supporting my motion. At its heart, this debate asks whether the voices of rural Scotland still matter in the national decisions that shape our landscapes, livelihoods and future. Across rural Scotland, from the Highlands to the south of Scotland, communities face growing uncertainty. Yet another wave of energy infrastructure has arrived at a pace and scale that was never properly planned, clearly explained or meaningfully discussed with those who are expected to live beside it for generations. That is the consequence of a Government pursuing energy expansion without building the democratic foundations that are required to support it.”
“Those are fine words and worthy aspirations, but there is little evidence that procurement, production or outcomes have shifted in any meaningful way. That brings me to community wealth building. Let me be absolutely clear: I am not opposed to the idea—quite the opposite. The Scottish Conservatives believe deeply in wealth creation. We believe in local enterprise, local jobs and strong communities. We believe in businesses of all kinds being able to start up, scale up and succeed. We believe in the money that is raised through taxation being used intelligently and being reinvested in the communities from which it comes. I see that I am out of time. [Interruption.] Oh— am I not out of time, Presiding Officer? Members: Aw!”
“The laws that we pass are meant to mean something—they are meant to change behaviour, shape incentives and improve outcomes for the people whom we represent. When they do not, we exist largely to allow ministers to say, “Job done.” That is not a harmless failure but a serious one. It wastes parliamentary time, costs taxpayers money and corrodes trust in the whole legislative process. In recent years, there has been a tendency towards introducing what I can only describe as performative legislation. We see symbolic action— we have announcements that sound good, bills that photograph well and strategies that generate press releases—followed by a general shrug when little changes on the ground. We have seen all that before. We saw it in the debate about becoming a so-called good food nation, as was mentioned earlier.”
“If we are not using those freedoms, passing another bill and declaring success is, to be frank, meaningless. My fear is that, unless the Government changes its attitude, the bill will simply become another beautiful bureaucratic exercise—it will just be like other strategies, plans and reports that sit unread and make no tangible difference to the lives of the people whom we represent. As this Parliament completes stage 3 of the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill, we should step back and ask a simple but important question: what do we think we are doing when we pass acts of Parliament in this place? Legislation is not theatre, it is not virtue signalling and it is not box ticking.”
“That is the good food nation for you. Stephen Kerr: Yes, the good food nation and all that stuff—excellent. However, my point is about the gap between rhetoric—in which we specialise—and reality. Such a gap is the danger with virtue-signalling legislation. If community wealth building does not change decisions such as the one in my example, if it does not alter procurement behaviour, and if it does not make it easier and more attractive for local businesses to supply local services, what exactly will we have achieved? We now have freedoms that we did not have before: freedoms to shape procurement rules in ways that support local enterprise; freedoms to encourage small businesses to start up and scale up; and freedoms to ensure that public money raised in taxes is recycled back into local economies wherever possible.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Carson, you have asked the question. Can we listen to the answer? Gillian Martin: Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is only fair that I am given the chance to answer. Finlay Carson: Answer the question. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Carson. Gillian Martin: I will write to the member. He might read that instead of not listening to me. Skye Reinforcement Project 3.”
“Given that the energy consents unit has removed the email and online routes for objections, leaving postal submissions as the only option for community groups such as Hands Off Our Hills or the Glengap Community Group, which is objecting to the proposed Lairdmannoch energy park, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give affected communities that they will still be able to participate meaningfully in the process to ensure that local democracy is not undermined by this disgraceful decision? Gillian Martin: We want to make sure that people are able to put their points of view forward. I have indicated that we have done some work with the UK Government on affording ministers new powers to make regulations mandating that developers engage with lowland communities. I think that it is good— Finlay Carson: They are objections.”