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 4 of 12.
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-20654, in the name of Craig Hoy, on opposing the Scottish Government’s proposed council tax rises, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) 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) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) 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) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) 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) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-20654.1, in the name of Michael Marra, is: For 23, Against 94, Abstentions 1.”
“Amendment agreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that amendment S6M-20654.1, in the name of Michael Marra, which seeks to amend motion S6M-20654, in the name of Craig Hoy, on opposing the Scottish Government’s proposed council tax rises, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Carson. We will ensure that that is recorded. For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) 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, 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) 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) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-20654.2, in the name of Shona Robison, is: For 59, Against 51, Abstentions 8.”
“To ask what immediate action the Scottish Government will take in light of the concerns raised by the Patient Safety Commissioner at the meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee on 3 February regarding transparency and risk mitigation in relation to maternity services in”
“Scottish businesses cannot afford to wait that long. If the current revaluation is allowed to proceed, we will see a collapse in the sector.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: I will give way to Mr Carson. Finlay Carson: I have seen businesses in my constituency go out of business. Does the member agree with me and Tom Hunter that we should bar every Government minister from local pubs and hotels until the business rates situation is fixed? Murdo Fraser: I am a very generous man and I do not want to see anybody barred from their local establishment, but it is in the hands of the minister and the cabinet secretary to do what Sir Tom Hunter has requested. Although the Government has indicated that there will be a review of the methodology, which is very welcome, that will not conclude until the end of this year. In any event, any change in methodology will not apply until the next revaluation cycle in 2029. That is simply too late.”
“We cannot support a bill that does little to deliver nature restoration in practice, creates uncertainty and risks eroding trust. Scotland deserves better law making than that. We will vote against the bill tonight, but we stand ready to work constructively on tighter, clearer, better-scoped legislation and on the practical programmes that restore nature— project by project, place by place.”
“Substantive new policies, particularly in sectors as technical as marine management and forestry, should be brought forward through focused, stand- alone legislation with proper scrutiny and impact assessments. Late additions at stage 3 are not the way to make good law and risk creating confusion that will fall on regulators and practitioners alike. They also reveal a lack of pace and leadership from this Government in sectors such as sustainable fisheries, where action is overdue. We need a more urgent focus if we are to protect coastal communities and our fishing industry while creating a healthier marine environment. If the bill passes this evening, the process for setting headline targets must ensure robust, fit-for- purpose co-design with practitioners, and outcomes must be published well before commencement.”
“If volunteers, small landholdings, community groups and microbusinesses find the rules too confusing, costly or sudden, we will have weakened—not strengthened—our ability to restore nature. I will also address the scope and conduct of stages 2 and 3. This bill is now much broader than the one that entered Parliament. It may be a bit hypocritical of me to say this, because I lodged one of the stage 3 amendments, but the lack of meaningful progress in many areas of rural policy inevitably leads to members trying to find other ways to address this Government’s shortcomings. Those shortcomings have meant that entirely new topics have appeared, such as marine matters, forestry matters, enforcement frameworks and funding mechanisms. Some have merit, but many lack adequate consultation or evidence.”
“What is missing from so much of the SNP Government’s approach and its attraction to framework bills—including this one, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, and the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022—is clarity and direction. We need a transition that keeps supply chains running instead of suddenly putting barriers in front of them. We need clarity about fees, timelines and support long before new duties begin. Good environmental legislation—indeed, any legislation—is not just about ambition; it is also about pragmatism and the capacity to deliver. If we lose belief or lose sight of outcomes, we lose buy- in from our bigger businesses.”
“Practitioners, whether they are farmers, land managers, conservation organisations, fishers, foresters or volunteers, are not obstacles to environmental recovery; they are the people who make it happen. Any legislation that affects them must be designed with them, which means publishing criteria, thresholds, definitions and evidence in advance of commencement, and it means tailoring policy to local circumstances rather than imposing universal figures that ignore geography, habitat type and community context. That has never been more true than with deer management. Trust should be treated as something to be earned and maintained through transparency, dialogue-first processes and proportionate enforcement. Nowhere is that more important than with the provisions that will impact on rural livelihoods.”
“Targets may sound decisive, but they rarely plant a tree, restore peatland or bring a habitat back to life. Targets too often produce a one-size-fits-all timetable, defensive compliance exercises and a drift towards litigation that displaces genuine collaboration. If ministers want accountability, there is a simpler and better route. They should bring to Parliament time-bound delivery plans that are costed and linked to budgets and milestones. MSPs should be able to scrutinise progress openly, with practitioners shaping the detail through guidance that is responsive rather than rigid. The Government should use primary legislation where there is a specific regulatory gap and not as a catch-all vehicle for unresolved policy questions. That brings me to the wider way in which the bill approaches change.”
“Although it attracted little comment at stage 3, the most controversial element of the bill has been the removal of the broad enabling powers over environmental assessments, which originally sat in part 2 of the bill. The committee was right to insist at stage 2 that such sweeping and undefined powers should not sit on the statute book without full consultation or clarity. Sadly, as we see far too often, SNP members blindly supported the Government’s position, choosing not to heed the views of every single non-Government witness and stakeholder, all of whom were deeply concerned about that part of the bill. Restoration does not start with targets; it starts with policy, funding and practical projects. It starts with guidance from practitioners and with guidance that practitioners can use.”
“My remarks will focus not on any one provision in the bill but on its underlying principles. As my colleague Tim Eagle said, my colleagues and I will not be supporting the bill at decision time, and I will be clear about why. It is not because we lack ambition for Scotland’s natural environment— far from it—but because the bill takes a wrong approach that risks replacing delivery with paperwork, collaboration with uncertainty and practical restoration with legal process. Scotland’s nature needs more than aspiration. We have bucketloads of aspiration in our rural communities, but we need workable policies that are grounded in evidence and shaped in partnership with the people who deliver on the ground, and those policies must be accountable to this Parliament through clear reporting, not courtroom targets.”
“The minister told the committee that he believed that there are inherent welfare risks associated with greyhound racing at speeds on oval tracks—risks that, in his view, cannot be fully eliminated through regulation or good practice.”
“At the time of our petition inquiry, the Scottish Government’s view was that, although statistics relating to injuries at tracks that were regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain were “unacceptable”, there was insufficient evidence that the welfare risks at independent tracks are comparable to those at GBGB tracks. For those who do not follow greyhound racing in detail, there is one track in Scotland—the independent track at Thornton in Fife. In our report on the petition, we asked the Scottish Government how it intended to gather data from that independent track. Although there has been no new data since our petition report, the Scottish Government supports the bill.”
“We agreed to pause consideration of the petition when the bill was introduced in order to let the bill complete its passage through Parliament. The committee as a whole supports the general principles of the bill. However, not all committee members are persuaded that the evidence gathered to date justifies a ban. Tim Eagle, Rhoda Grant, Beatrice Wishart and I take the view that a sufficiently robust case has not so far been made. Before I speak directly to the bill’s provisions, I want to lay out how the committee’s scrutiny has highlighted important questions, which we look forward to discussing in the debate.”
“I congratulate Mark Ruskell on getting his bill this far. However, I am here to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and to set out the findings of our stage 1 scrutiny of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill. In commencing its stage 1 scrutiny, the committee ran a targeted call for views between August and October 2025, which was followed by evidence sessions with the minister and the member in charge of the bill. On behalf of the committee, I thank everyone who has contributed to our scrutiny of the issue. The committee has considered the issue over an extended period, having previously held a short inquiry into petition PE1758, which urges the Scottish Government to end greyhound racing in Scotland.”
“The amendment would be a practical win for coastal communities, a policy win for a circular economy and a legislative win for clarity over confusion. I urge members to support my amendment and to give Scotland’s shellfish processors, buyers and the projects that they deliver the certainty that they deserve.”
“To be clear, it does not weaken public health, it does not touch food safety rules and it does not change the status of shells with residual tissue. Those remain category 3 animal by-products. The amendment applies only to clean, tissue-free shells. It adds clarity; it does not dilute the arrangements. The Parliament often speaks about empowering coastal communities, cutting unnecessary red tape and delivering a circular economy. The amendment puts those words into action. It removes a disproportionate regulatory hurdle, supports restoration and biodiversity projects that already rely on shells and creates value from a material that would otherwise represent a cost, while keeping safeguards and ministerial oversight firmly in place.”
“It retains full ministerial powers to set standards and require “traceability and labelling”, and it requires ministers to consult SEPA, the Association of Professional Healthcare Analysts, FSS and local authorities. This is not, as Emma Harper suggested, deregulation; it is better regulation—smarter, proportionate and rooted in the principles of the circular economy. We cannot claim to be serious about circularity while treating a clean, reusable material as hazardous waste, nor can we keep telling processors and community projects to wait for further regulation while they face costs, delays and uncertainty. Article 5 already provides a robust, legally tested definition of a by-product. Scotland uses it across environmental regulation. It works. The amendment brings clarity into primary legislation now, not years from now.”
“Although we could not agree that guidance would deliver the required changes, amendment 154 addresses the shortcomings with the stage 2 amendment that were identified by the cabinet secretary and by Emma Harper. Let me be crystal clear about what the amendment does: it states that “clean, tissue-free” scallop shells—they are inert, stable and widely used—can be “treated as by-products” when an established article 5 test is met. It permits proportionate, time-limited, temporary storage, movement or aggregation of the shells without a full environmental authorisation, provided that operators keep simple records. It recognises genuine, established markets for the shells: soil improvement, landscaping, water filtration and coastal restoration.”
“If we put the guidance into legislation, it means that it will be statutory and that SEPA will need to follow the guidance that the ministers create. Is that not what his amendment is all about? Finlay Carson: I am not suggesting that guidance is bad, but it certainly does not go as far as the processors that I have had conversations with would like. Moving on to amendment 154, I thank colleagues from across the chamber, who all, other than those in the SNP, supported the principle behind it at stage 2. Members recognised that Scotland’s coastal communities deserve better than legal uncertainty and bureaucratic delay. I thank the cabinet secretary for engaging constructively.”
“I am disappointed that Emma Harper, who represents South Scotland, which comprises businesses along the Solway, is trying to overturn my stage 2 amendment, which was passed by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and supported by Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. However, she has the opportunity to make amends and stand up for her constituents— those who have expressed their opinions to her— by supporting my revised and improved amendment, which I will now turn to. Emma Harper: I believe that I am standing up for constituents. My understanding is that your amendment— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair. Emma Harper: Sorry, Presiding Officer. My understanding is that Finlay Carson’s amendment 154 makes the legislation more complicated and onerous.”
“Without statutory definition, especially when a material is a by-product rather than waste, the core issues persist—the same permits, transport requirements and storage restrictions. Markets need legal assurances, not suggestions. Agriculture, construction, restoration and craft sectors will not accept secondary material unless its legal status is clear. For all those reasons, and in line with what processors have told me directly, guidance-only amendments risk giving the appearance of progress while leaving the regulatory burden intact. If the Parliament wants lower costs, less bureaucracy and less uncertainty, it must deliver statutory change, not non-binding guidance.”
“I will address amendment 153, which was lodged by Emma Harper, and set out why a guidance-only approach cannot deliver the practical change that stakeholders, particularly processors, need. Guidance does not change the law: it is non-binding and regulators only need to have regard to it. The statutory framework, the licensing, the storage and transport rules and the documentation would remain exactly the same. Processors have been clear that guidance will not cut costs, reduce red tape or remove uncertainty. Day-to-day decisions will rest on case-by-case interpretation, with all the inconsistencies that that entails. As the guidance is non-binding, it can introduce regional variations, leaving businesses unsure when planning investment, managing seasonal peaks or managing supply chains.”
“Kirkcudbright bridge serves as a warning, but such situations are also opportunities—to modernise Scotland’s local infrastructure and to protect rural communities that rely on such crossings every day. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I take this opportunity to remind members that back-bench speeches should be up to four minutes—as members have agreed to by their participation in the debate. 17:36”
“Automatic number plate recognition enforcement has proven somewhat effective in Kirkcudbright, but more needs to be done. Rolling out similar systems nationwide will help to protect vulnerable bridges and extend their lifespan. Our weather patterns are changing, and we need increased investment in climate resilience, particularly scour monitoring and river bed surveys, to reduce the risk of sudden failures. The Scottish Government needs to recognise that councils are facing bridge backlogs measured in tens and hundreds of millions of pounds. We need long-term, predictable funding, not short- term pots that disappear before projects can advance. The motion is about safeguarding connectivity, the rural economy and public confidence. Bridges hold communities together. When they fail, communities fail.”
“Such examples underline that rural Scotland is once more being asked to absorb infrastructure losses that it cannot afford to shoulder. I am therefore calling for future Governments to consider the creation of a multiyear, ring-fenced national bridge programme, jointly funded with local authorities. Priorities should be transparent and based on lifeline criteria such as healthcare access, education, emergency response, freight and tourism. We need accelerated replacement for structures where capacity is already structurally exhausted, as in Kirkcudbright. That means funding early-stage design, surveys and statutory work so that communities are not left waiting for years before construction can begin. As a safeguarding exercise, we need strengthened weight limit compliance.”
“There has been much debate about Scottish Government intervention and project-specific funding. I called on the First Minister for support when the bridge first closed. I will not repeat the arguments that I made then, but the central point is that, if a bridge is essential to local and regional connectivity, as Kirkcudbright’s bridge unquestionably is, Scotland needs a practical co- funding mechanism that will allow such projects to move quickly and keep towns connected. I cannot overstate the impact on the local economy, including businesses from cafes and hotels to trades and tourist businesses. Kirkcudbright is far from the only example, and the issues are not confined to road bridges. We will hear later, in a contribution from Craig Hoy, about footbridges in Annan.”
“They adapted to the diversions, delays and uncertainty, and they lived with very real questions about what would happen if the bridge’s condition deteriorated further, in particular regarding emergency access. To its credit, the council recognised the scale of the challenge, and it has designated a replacement for the A755 Kirkcudbright bridge as a strategic priority. An initial budget allocation was approved last April, and approximately £100,000 is now being used to develop the outline business case. However, a full replacement bridge is a multiyear, multistage undertaking. It requires design progression, statutory processes, environmental and land surveys, procurement and—crucially—construction funding that no single authority can, or should be expected to, shoulder alone.”
“Pedestrians and cyclists could still cross, but the vital road link—the practical everyday connection—was severed, and a five-mile detour was put in place. By July, following further assessment with engineers, the bridge was reopened, but under severe restrictions. Those measures, while inconvenient, are a solution to avoid total closure—they are a clear engineering judgment that the structure is at the end of its working life. However, automatic number plate recognition and closed-circuit television enforcement had to be deployed because non-compliance posed a real risk. I hear that far too many people are still breaking the rules and are not being prosecuted. Throughout that period, the community and businesses of Kirkcudbright showed remarkable patience and resilience.”
“Across the UK, the RAC Foundation continues to identify thousands of council-managed bridges that are rated as “substandard”, which are restricted, weight limited or awaiting essential repairs that local authorities simply cannot afford to fund in the near term. That is the national context into which the people of Kirkcudbright were thrust last year. I am speaking about the A755 Kirkcudbright bridge— not the other, famous, Telford bridge at Tongland. The Kirkcudbright bridge is a key crossing on which the town relies every single day. On 21 March 2025, Dumfries and Galloway Council took the difficult, but necessary, decision to close the bridge to all vehicle traffic. Engineers had confirmed that it no longer met minimum loading requirements.”
“I congratulate my friend and colleague for bringing this important issue to the chamber. Bridges in rural Scotland are far more than physical structures—they are lifelines connecting families to healthcare, pupils to their schools, local businesses to their customers and emergency services to the people who rely on them. When one of those crossings fails, the consequences are immediate, far reaching and often severe. Tim Eagle spoke about the Spey viaduct, demonstrating, in the clearest possible terms, that even historic structures that we assume to be permanent are increasingly vulnerable. However, the Spey viaduct is not an isolated case. Across Scotland, councils are being forced into making impossible choices. Highland Council has already acknowledged that some bridges will now be entering “managed decline”.”
“I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on what I have said as the budget process continues, because I am sure that I speak for all committee members when I say that we want the Scottish Government to deliver a budget that is fit for purpose and enables our rural communities to thrive and prosper. 15:54”
“Shona Robison: It is important to recognise that, alongside the islands plan, there will be three accelerator deals for Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles. Those deals, which involve our supporting their borrowing capacity, have the potential to lever in hundreds of millions of pounds, so they must be considered alongside the money in the islands plan. Finlay Carson: The 13 per cent cut includes a reduction in capital funding for both carbon-neutral islands and islands plan budgets. I am unclear how those cuts will help to deliver the ambitious commitments that the Scottish Government has made to our island communities, but I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said. I think that it is fair to say that this year’s draft budget brings both good and bad news for people who live and work in rural communities.”
“On forestry, the draft budget includes an increase in spending on woodland creation to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the land-use sector. The committee has heard consistently throughout our scrutiny of the draft climate change plan that public funding in the forestry sector could, if it is deployed effectively, help to crowd in additional private investment in the workforce and in the equipment that Scotland needs to achieve our climate and biodiversity goals. However, the budget for woodland creation still falls short of the budget in 2023-24, before large cuts were made the following year. The draft budget allocates £7.1 million for support for our island communities, which represents a 13 per cent cut in funding compared with the funding that was provided in the 2025-26 autumn budget revision.”
“Given that the site is in much need of upgrades and replacements and that there is a budget commitment to fisheries modernisation, it is disappointing that the marine directorate’s capital budget has been cut by £900,000 in real terms. We were informed this morning that some capital work will be funded through the Scottish Government’s capital budget. Although there are no suggestions that it is a deliberate policy, there continues to be concern about the transparency of budget spending in relation to the marine directorate. I note that the Scottish Government has increased the marine fund Scotland by £2.1 million, which it says will support the delivery of outcomes for Scotland’s blue economy vision.”
“On fisheries, the draft budget provides a settlement of £79.3 million for the marine directorate. That is the same settlement, in cash terms, as was provided last year, so that equates to a £1.7 million decrease in real terms. That means that the marine directorate’s budget has decreased in real terms for the third consecutive year. Last year, the committee focused our pre- budget scrutiny on the marine directorate. As part of that work, we visited the directorate’s Aberdeen laboratories. The committee was concerned by the poor condition of the facilities and the impact that that was having on the scientists’ ability to carry out important science to inform fisheries management. We recommended that the Scottish Government prioritise a long-term solution to enable the restoration and modernisation of the facilities as a matter of urgency.”
“The £26 million in capital funding for the agricultural modernisation fund is a welcome development, and I look forward to hearing more about future spending plans for that funding. However, it is important to note that that is not additional funding; the £26 million that was taken from the ring-fenced budget in previous years is being returned. A more welcome development in the draft budget is the increase in funding for the Crofting Commission. In its stage 1 report on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, the committee made it clear that an adequately resourced Crofting Commission, capable of effectively enforcing crofters’ duties, is essential to a healthy, thriving and sustainable crofting community. The additional funding will go some way towards ensuring that the commission has the tools to deliver on that promise.”
“Although I understand why the Scottish Government is keen to emphasise the importance of fiscal sustainability when making its decisions on the budget, I am concerned that, when budgets are tight, the Government seems to go to this portfolio first in order to find savings. For at least the previous two budgets, it has been the only portfolio to see a real-terms reduction in budget, despite increasing pressure on rural areas to deliver on the Scottish Government’s climate and biodiversity targets. I will turn to some of the specific budget lines. The SPICe budget briefing notes that the funding allocations for major agricultural payment schemes continue to be broadly frozen in cash terms.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Unfortunately, as the cabinet secretary said, our committee has not carried out pre-budget scrutiny this year due to time pressures on our work programme. However, we met the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands this morning. I plan to focus my remarks on some of the key budget announcements in the rural affairs portfolio, beginning with some of the headline figures. The rural affairs portfolio settlement is £1.2 billion in this year’s draft budget. According to independent analysis that was carried out by SPICe, that represents a 3.5 per cent real-terms cut compared with the 2025-26 autumn budget revision. That cut follows previous cuts to the portfolio’s funding in last year’s budget.”
“We have carried out exactly the right kind of policy, in stark contrast with the scheme that the Conservatives started in Westminster and the Labour Party has continued with. We are doing it right in Scotland. Other places are getting it very wrong. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 5 was not lodged. Lynx Reintroduction (Potential Impact on Farmers and Crofters) 6.”
“How can the minister expect farmers to invest in new biodiversity or emission-reducing measures without clear, long-term, fully funded commitments? Does he accept that, without adequate funding, even the most willing farmer will struggle to meet the targets? Will he ensure that no farmer is left worse off as a result of policy changes? Jim Fairlie: We have delivered direct support. We have delivered the Scottish upland sheep support scheme and the calf scheme. We have made sure that the less favoured areas support scheme is still in place. We have given those commitments. We have said right from the start that there will be no cliff edges or big-bang moments. We are doing that at pace, with the farming community on board, and we are delivering incremental changes that they can get on board with.”
“Will you instruct your officials to engage urgently with the health and social care partnership and the IJB in Dumfries and Galloway to secure and make public a dated continuity plan that includes single family contacts and named leads and a timetable for consultation under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, and will you commit the Government to give support, if required, including bridging arrangements, so that there will be no cliff edge in April? The Presiding Officer: I remind members of the requirement to speak through the chair.”
“My constituents are deeply alarmed that Dumfries and Galloway’s integration joint board plans to end Alzheimer Scotland-commissioned dementia support on 31 March. They fear that that change will seriously harm the care of the 373 people who are currently supported, including 235 who are in the year of guaranteed post-diagnostic support. I am aware that you have recently been heavily engaged in looking at the future of dementia support through your advanced dementia round- table work, precisely to avoid changes being made without proper consultation.”
“I call Christine Grahame to speak for up to four minutes. 18:14”
“The club is working with grass-roots clubs such as Millennium FC and Lochryan’s boys club to create under-13 and under-15 teams, and it is also involved with Alzheimer Scotland and Arthritis UK to offer safe and sociable activities for older adults. I do not have much time for my speech today, but it would be remiss of me not to mention other clubs such as Threave Rovers, Dalbeattie Star and my home-town club of St Cuthbert Wanderers, which do hugely important work in our communities. Football remains a winner, thanks to wonderful community-inspired ideas and initiatives. Long may that continue. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can see that my appeal for members to keep to the time limit is falling on deaf ears and I might have to resort to disciplinary action if members’ behaviour does not improve.”
“The club’s extra time project distributes meals to many local families who would otherwise struggle, and local food suppliers are encouraged to make donations to support the club’s food bank. Similarly, Stranraer Football Club has shown that a community club can be a civic anchor by using the public space at Stair Park to bring people together and by delivering tangible local benefits, such as improved health and increased public participation in sport. Once again, walking football has proved to be a winner with all ages, and it has allowed many seniors to relive their youth. Stranraer’s mini-kickers work with local nurseries to build physical literacy and nutrition awareness, while in-school soccer sessions regularly attract about 700 primary school children.”