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 7 of 12.
“Last week, a receptionist in a local general practitioner surgery in Galloway in my constituency had to call 999 for an ambulance for a patient. It took more than 55 minutes for that call to be answered and, when it was answered, the receptionist was told that there would be a four- hour wait for an ambulance. That does not even take into consideration the one-hour drive to the nearest accident and emergency department. First Minister, can you imagine being with a loved one who has suffered a heart attack, a stroke or an asthma attack and having to wait almost an hour just to have your 999 call answered? What reassurance can you give my constituents that they can expect a fit-for-purpose emergency response, both in getting through to 999 and in receiving timely ambulance care? There is no way that 55 minutes is an emergency response.”
“[Laughter.] Jackie Baillie: I move, That the Parliament is alarmed by the serious patient safety issues raised in recent inspection reports of maternity services, and calls on the Scottish Government to launch a national investigation into the design and delivery of maternity and neonatal services across Scotland. 15:09”
“This is about investing in the next generation, in women’s health, in our rural communities and in Scotland’s future. Today, MSPs of all parties have a chance to listen to the mums, dads, doctors and experts, and to agree to a national investigation into these crucial services so that mothers and babies can be safe and get the treatment that they need. [Interruption.] I am glad that a baby is having the last word. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Unfortunately, the baby cannot move the motion, Ms Baillie, so I would be grateful if you could do so.”
“We need more than three specialist neonatal services to cover the diverse geography of Scotland. We need to learn from the best international practice, to deliver the highest standards of remote and rural care. We need a proper workforce plan that enshrines our investment in the next generation of midwives. That will pay off, so that maternity units are properly staffed. We need to ensure that we hold those at the top accountable, while fostering a workplace culture where staff feel supported and there is openness, transparency and willingness to learn from mistakes. The United Kingdom Labour Government has delivered record funding for Scotland’s public services—an extra £5.2 billion to spend in this year alone. A fraction of that would have made a difference to maternity services.”
“Midwives and other front-line staff are trying their best, but they are being set up to fail. I welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to set up a task force to take immediate action, but, by itself, that is not enough. The Government is littered with task forces and recommendations that have not been implemented. We need a national investigation, not in place of the task force but alongside it, starting now. That is what the families want and what this Parliament should deliver. We need maternity services that wrap their arms around women and babies, rather than expecting women to wait for days on end to be induced because it is more convenient to do it that way. We need transparency, not secrecy. We need the duty of candour to be effective, rather than only words on a page.”
“Behind those figures are caring, experienced staff who are forced to make impossible choices due to the Scottish National Party’s managed decline of our NHS. Year after year, the Royal College of Midwives has repeatedly warned about workplace shortages and the lack of opportunity for midwives to develop their skills. Finlay Carson might remember that, last year, there was the scandal of newly trained midwives facing unemployment. The Scottish Government had spent millions of pounds on their training but could not find the funding to give them jobs—at a time when there were thousands of vacancies. We have no workforce plan, skills going to rot, mothers not getting the support that they need and experienced front-line staff going off sick or retiring with burnout.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Jackie Baillie: I am happy to do so. Finlay Carson: Although patient safety is paramount, does the member accept that the reduction in the number of midwives through poor workplace management has reduced the choice that women have? Women should have a choice about where to give birth that is not based only on safety. Jackie Baillie: I agree—understaffing is one of the key problems in some of the distressing cases that I outlined and also in being able to provide safe midwifery-led services locally. I will come on to deal with that issue. Research conducted by Labour found that, in 2024 alone, there were 333,296 unfilled nurse and midwifery shifts.”
“We will ensure that the kind of support that we are putting in place—which is working for Scottish farming—is better targeted in the future. Ambulances (Waits) 2.”
“There is a range of what those were: no active farmer; a failure to meet the minimum activity status; not being registered with or approved by the Scottish Government rural payments and inspections division; incomplete or missing investment details; unsupported or inconsistent investment; invalid email addresses, which create a notification risk; previous schemes not having been declared; the application having exceeded the minimum grant threshold; and the recovery ratio being below 30 per cent. There are a range of issues as to why some people were not eligible. However, I reiterate that we will take the learnings. I bear in mind that the scheme was very generous. We were giving 100 per cent grants for equipment, in order to give farmers the best opportunity to get it. Perhaps we need to rethink the 100 per cent grant.”
“Will the minister commit to publishing the scoring framework and outcomes on each individual application, to ensure transparency, and will he commit to urgently engaging with agents to inform improvements to future schemes? Jim Fairlie: I will not commit to sharing scoring on every single application. I will not use Government resources to that extent, because that would be a massive effort. On Finlay Carson’s first question, which was about ineligibility, there were a number of reasons. According to my figures, 3,539 people—47 per cent—were not prioritised for funding because they did not meet one or more of the eligibility and compliance requirements.”
“This weekend, my inbox has been full of emails—many from agents who have had less than a good experience. They have submitted multiple applications on behalf of priority applicants such as young farmers, new entrants and environmentally focused business, but with minimal success. In some instances, farmers have gone for exactly the same equipment; one has hit the priorities and got nothing, but others have hit zero priorities and got funding. It is also concerning that, from what the minister says, it appears that no farmers have been told whether they were ineligible; rather, they were unsuccessful due to the scheme being oversubscribed. How many farmers were ruled out as a result of the scoring methodology that was used, and why were applicants not given the opportunity to justify their choices?”
“We therefore hope that the Government engages constructively with our report’s findings as the bill progresses to ensure that it is capable of delivering on that worthy aim. 14:47”
“Although we support the Scottish Government’s ambitions to increase the supply of venison that enters the food chain, there were concerns about how the removal of the licence might impact on traceability. That information is crucial to consumer confidence in the venison industry and its produce. We recommended that the current licence scheme is maintained until the NatureScot deer app, which is currently in development, has been rolled out across Scotland and is able to offer a suitable replacement for the traceability that is currently provided by the licence. The committee supports the general principles of the bill, but we also agree that improvements are needed if the bill is to be effective in achieving its core ambition of tackling the nature emergency in Scotland.”
“We were all clear that the Scottish Government must proceed with caution when rolling out new enforcement powers to avoid eroding the trust and collaboration that have been carefully built between NatureScot and deer managers in recent years. The committee also agreed with expanding the role of the register of persons competent to shoot deer, but we want the Scottish Government to support non-certified stalkers with accessing the register through exploring the use of grandfather rights and referee schemes as a way of demonstrating baseline competence. Finally, the committee heard mixed evidence on proposals in the bill to repeal the venison dealer licence.”
“NatureScot told the committee about how new powers would enable it to mitigate the environmental impacts of wild deer more effectively. On the other hand, we heard strong concerns from the deer management sector about the lack of detail around how and when the new intervention powers would be used. In weighing up both arguments, the committee considered that, although it would be helpful for NatureScot to have that proposed ground for intervention “in its toolkit”, those powers should be used to complement, not replace, the voluntary work of our deer management groups and stalkers, who already play a key role in controlling deer numbers in their local areas.”
“However, there were some concerns about the revised aims for national parks and that they would not go far enough in addressing the following issues: some of the social and economic challenges that are faced by rural communities; the potential resource implications for public bodies in meeting their new requirements to “facilitate the implementation of” instead of “have regard to” national park plans; and how the use of fixed penalty notices would operate alongside the park rangers’ existing educational role, which is also vital. On part 4, which relates to deer management, much of the evidence that we received related to proposals to introduce new enforcement powers that would allow NatureScot to regulate deer management activities on a piece of land to support nature restoration.”
“The committee made several recommendations about how those concerns could be addressed through strengthening environmental protections and enhanced parliamentary oversight. However, there remained in the committee significant mixed views about whether part 2 should be strengthened or simply removed altogether. In her response to our report, the cabinet secretary indicated that the Scottish Government intends to introduce amendments that would tighten up part 2 and provide greater clarity on how those powers could be exercised. In her summing up, I ask the cabinet secretary to set out a bit more detail about what those amendments might look like. Turning to part 3, on the management of national parks, the committee heard general support among most stakeholders for the bill’s proposals.”
“The committee was also supportive of the decision to appoint Environmental Standards Scotland to independently review the Scottish Government’s progress towards delivering statutory targets, but we agreed with the ESS that its role should be clarified and strengthened as the bill progresses. We were also clear that the ESS must have the necessary powers and resources to carry out its new functions effectively. Turning to part 2 of the bill, on powers to modify environmental impact assessment legislation and habitat regulations, the committee heard strong opposition to that provision from most stakeholders, with many arguing that the proposed powers in part 2 were excessively broad and lacked sufficient environmental safeguards.”
“We were also clear that statutory targets are not a silver bullet to protect the natural environment, and the Scottish Government will not meet targets unless they are underpinned by meaningful action and resources that support their implementation. The committee also scrutinised the processes for setting and monitoring statutory targets, and we made a number of recommendations on how those frameworks could be improved. I welcome the commitment that the cabinet secretary made, in her response to our report, to give those points further consideration ahead of stage 2.”
“On behalf of the committee, I thank all the stakeholders, some of whom are in the gallery today, who supported our considerations of the bill and the hard work of the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre. Throughout our stage 1 scrutiny, the committee heard concerning evidence about the scale of biodiversity loss that has taken place in Scotland over recent decades. The “State of Nature” report has assessed that one in nine species in Scotland are at risk of national extinction. We agree with the Scottish Government’s intention to introduce statutory nature targets in part 1 of the bill as a way of galvanising a national response to tackling this nature emergency.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to set out the findings of our stage 1 report. The committee began its scrutiny of the bill in March, when we issued a call for written evidence. We also held 12 evidence sessions between March and June, hearing from a range of stakeholders and three Scottish Government ministers. We went on a fact-finding visit to Cairngorms national park, where we held a community engagement event and visited three estates that take different approaches to land management. The committee also held an online engagement event with deer practitioners to discuss part 4 of the bill.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what powers local communities will have to raise objections in relation to new energy infrastructure projects. (S6O-05089)”
“Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Hepburn: I do not think that I have time, Mr Carson. I have to close and I want to make this point. Banking hubs can provide an opportunity to replace the retail banking on our high streets that we have lost. However, I agree with Murdo Fraser that some of the regulation around them is too strict. It focuses on access to cash, but retail banks offer much more than that. I would very much like community banking hubs to be established in both Kilsyth and Cumbernauld, and that is something that I will continue to call for. 13:03”
“As can be seen throughout the report and heard from speakers across the chamber, there are many calls for changes to be made, and so many proposed alterations would require additional scrutiny and additional time. Some of the requested changes are not insignificant and would leave the bill significantly different from the original bill that was proposed. For that reason, I cannot support the bill at stage 1. 15:56”
“Will the member take an intervention on that point? Emma Harper: No, I will continue speaking, because I have a couple of pages left of my speech that I would like to finish. During and since the Covid pandemic, we have seen the advances of Near Me appointments and video consultations—they should be taken into consideration should the bill progress. Video or remote consultations suit people in rural areas for a number of reasons, such as those relating to travel, transport, time and privacy. The committee also heard concerns about the three-week timescales for individuals to commence treatment that are proposed in the bill, which might cause challenges in the quality and choice of treatment and could, again, lead to restrictions of treatment. I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer.”
“We owe it to him and others like him to give them a fighting chance. 19:25”
“Bowel cancer screening remains one of the best ways to diagnose people early, with the UK National Screening Committee recommending that people aged between 50 and 74 are invited to be screened every two years. Health experts say that screening can save lives, yet only 66 per cent of people who are eligible to take up the offer in Scotland do so. More must be done to encourage them if we are to seriously win the battle. Another barrier that must be overcome to improve early diagnosis is that of the long- standing staff shortages in endoscopy and pathology services. Again, I urge the Scottish Government to act to relieve the pressure on diagnostic services by tackling workforce issues. As my colleague Edward Mountain has shown this evening, this is a battle that can be won if the right ammunition is put in place.”
“Presently, nearly 3,500 people in the area are waiting for a diagnostic test for bowel cancer, while 95 per cent of people in the constituency start treatment within the 62-day target following an urgent referral. In the south-west of Scotland, the overall picture is looking promising, although much still needs to be done to improve the figures even further in the times ahead. There remains an onus on the Scottish Government to initiate bold steps to improve early diagnosis of bowel cancer and to improve patient outcomes. We have heard that one way to do that is to introduce a test with extra sensitivity, which I hope the health secretary and his minister who is in the chamber tonight will fully take on board as we strive to get the figures down even further.”
“In fact, nine out of 10 people will survive if diagnosed at the earliest stages—1 or 2. Key to saving lives is diagnosing patients earlier, yet only 40 per cent of cases in Scotland are caught before the disease has spread. That must change if we are to achieve our vision of a future in which nobody dies of bowel cancer. Encouragingly, bowel screening uptake in NHS Dumfries and Galloway was just under 70 per cent between 2022 and 2024, which is higher than Scotland’s national average of around 65 per cent. However, there are more than 160 new diagnoses of bowel cancer each year in my constituency, and the incidence rate is higher than the national average. The bowel cancer mortality rate is thankfully lower than the national average, although there are still more than 45 deaths from the disease in NHS Dumfries and Galloway annually.”
“He has won great admiration from members across the political divide—deservedly so—for being so forthright and honest in his health battle. I am sure that we can all join to praise his resilience and advocacy. As we have heard in previous members’ business debates on cancers, it is often all about statistics—some are good, some are very worrying, and there are others that simply cannot be ignored as much as we would possibly like to. Bowel cancer is no different. It is the fourth most common cancer but, sadly, it is the second biggest cancer killer. Some 44,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with the disease every year and, tragically, just under half of them lose their lives, including 1,700 people here in Scotland. However, we need not have that sorry outcome, as bowel cancer is treatable and curable if it is diagnosed early enough.”
“I thank my Conservative colleague and good friend Edward Mountain for bringing up this topic for discussion. My mother had a tumour in her bowel, went through the process and, luckily, survived. We know that this subject is very close to Edward’s heart, having announced three years ago that he was receiving treatment for bowel cancer. Many of us are fully aware of Edward’s treatment for that condition and of the journey that he took. Since then, he has become a formidable advocate for bowel cancer awareness by encouraging others to look after their health and to get checked for early signs of the disease. His commendable actions, together with his sheer determination and courage to battle bowel cancer, stand as a shining example to all of us here tonight.”
“That has never been in question, nor is it in question that reaching it will require cross-party consensus on the difficult policy decisions that are required to get there. Today, Parliament has the opportunity to solidify in legislation Scotland’s path to net zero; to reiterate our commitment to addressing this challenge head on; and to focus on continuing to drive forward action for the benefit of our communities, now and for generations to come. I urge Parliament to take that opportunity and meet the expectations of the public, who want us to act. My thanks go to those organisations that have reached out to MSPs to ask them to vote for the instrument, which sets in train that action. 17:48”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point? Gillian Martin: No, I am going to proceed. There is an hour’s debate for members to put forward their views, and I will respond at the end. Parliament will have 120 days in which to scrutinise the plan, alongside a 12-week public consultation to invite views more widely. That consultation will be timed to enable us to have detailed conversations on the content of the draft climate change plan. It is of the utmost importance to me that we bring people along with us on this journey. My door has always been open, and it remains open to any member in the chamber who wishes to engage with me. However, I remind members that reaching net zero by 2045 remains a legal obligation.”
“We believe that it rightly recognises the emotional and welfare impacts of dog theft and supports the creation of a statutory offence. However, we have made several recommendations to improve the bill’s effectiveness and proportionality, particularly around awareness raising, the definitions of assistance and working dogs, and the removal of the victim statement provision. 15:51”
“Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to expanding victim statements more broadly, we recommend removing that provision at stage 2. Sections 4 and 5 relate to reporting and data collection. Although the minister has stated that the provisions are unnecessary, stakeholders agree that current data on dog theft is inadequate and likely underrepresents the true scale of the issue. However, due to how crimes are currently recorded under the Scottish crime recording standard, a statutory offence alone would not improve data collection, and the committee recommends amending the crime recording standards to improve data accuracy, regardless of whether the bill passes. In summary, the committee supports the general principles of the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill.”
“If the bill progresses, we recommend reviewing the definition of an assistance dog to ensure that it includes all dogs that provide support and assistance, and we are content with the use of the negative procedure for any regulations related to that definition. Although the theft of a working dog, such as a sheepdog, might not have the same life-changing impacts as the theft of an assistance dog, it can still cause emotional distress and disrupt livelihoods. Therefore, the committee recommends extending the aggravation to include other working dogs. On victim statements, the committee notes that the court already considers the impact of crimes on victims during sentencing. Including victim statements specifically for dog thefts in summary courts could create inconsistencies, as they are not available for other offences.”
“Section 2 proposes that the theft of an assistance dog be treated as an aggravated offence. The committee recognises the serious, life-changing impact that such a theft would have on the owner, and the provision was strongly supported by witnesses, including the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which emphasised that such dogs are highly trained working animals that provide essential mobility support. However, we noted that there have been no recorded cases of assistance dog theft in Scotland. Courts already consider the impact of crimes during sentencing, so it is unclear whether the provision is proportionate.”
“Without such an awareness-raising campaign, the deterrent effect is likely to be limited. We welcome the Scottish Government’s expert advisory group on dog control and welfare, and have recommended that Maurice Golden explores awareness-raising opportunities if the bill progresses. The committee is content with the three defences outlined in section 1(2) to 1(4). We also considered concerns about dog theft in the context of domestic abuse. Witnesses agreed that prosecutions under existing domestic abuse legislation are sufficient, and the committee concluded that further measures would fall outside the bill’s scope. The penalties proposed in the bill align with those available under common law in the sheriff court but are lower than those that are available in the High Court.”
“Organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Dogs Trust and Scottish SPCA support that view, arguing that current law treats dogs as mere property. Further, Police Scotland agreed that the common law fails to reflect the emotional and welfare impacts on families and pets. The committee supports the creation of a stand- alone offence that recognises dogs as sentient beings and acknowledges the emotional harm caused by their theft. Although Maurice Golden believes that a statutory offence would act as a deterrent, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the minister do not believe that it would change how offences are investigated or prosecuted. The committee also noted the absence of a dedicated awareness-raising budget, which we previously identified as crucial when considering Christine Grahame’s bill.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee about our stage 1 scrutiny of Maurice Golden’s Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. Given the bill’s focused scope and the 237 responses to Mr Golden’s consultation, the committee agreed to a shortened stage 1 inquiry, without issuing a general call for views. Between March and May, we took evidence from key organisations, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and, finally, Maurice Golden himself. The bill proposes a statutory offence of dog theft, which reflects Maurice Golden’s view that the common-law offence of theft does not adequately take into account the emotional significance of dogs as sentient beings.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what engagement its marine directorate has undertaken to progress any plans to reopen a boat-based cockle fishery on the Solway Firth. (S6O-04994)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to vote; I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Carson. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“The threat is not only to human life but to wildlife in our countryside, where the loss of tree cover has been dramatic.”
“That is an unusually high figure compared with previous years, going back to 2012. The response to a freedom of information request revealed that Scotland has suffered 1,574 wildfires during the past decade. Alarmingly, the figures show that there were more wildfires during this year than in any other full year except 2017 and 2018. The figures, which are drawn from Scottish Fire and Rescue Service data, coincide with periods of historically high temperatures, as confirmed by weather forecasters’ records. During the same period, Scotland has increased its tree cover, reduced grazing by sheep and deer and seen fewer hectares of upland under active management through prescribed burning. Those changes, which some believe are well intentioned, have undeniably contributed to the problem.”
“It is refreshing to have a debate on a burning issue that truly matters to communities across Scotland rather than the recent focus on foreign policy and constitutional wrangling. Puns aside, this is a very serious issue. The increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires in Scotland, including in my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, is deeply alarming. Wildfires are no longer rare events; they are a growing threat to people, property and our natural environment. I thank Emma Roddick for bringing this important debate to the chamber. The issue demands urgent action from the SNP Government—it should not be another issue that is kicked into the long grass. Traditionally, the peak fire season in Dumfries and Galloway runs from early March for around 12 weeks, yet this year we saw 10 fire alerts between 13 January and 15 September.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the United Kingdom Government’s recently announced funding to test new ways to tackle obesity and the reported limited access to weight management treatments across Scotland, what steps it is taking to ensure that people in rural areas, such as Dumfries and Galloway, can access new weight loss treatments, including through innovative models such as pharmacist-led pilot schemes in general practitioner practices. (S6O-04912)”
“The cabinet secretary very helpfully accepted my invitation to join cockle fisher stakeholders at a meeting in Newton Stewart in July. At that meeting, she committed to come back with a progress report on the approach to opening a sustainable cockle fishery on the Solway. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on progress? Mairi Gougeon: I thank Finlay Carson for the meeting that I held with him and his constituent on such a fishery. We had a really helpful discussion. I am still waiting for more information from officials, but I will keep him updated. When I receive that information, I will look to discuss the issue further with him. Glen Prosen 2.”
“The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on 20 years of Scotland’s railway providing a strong platform for the future. Business Motions 17:09”
“However, until we see the legislation, the proposed UK vertical integration presents a real quandary and conundrum in respect of how it might apply to Scotland. It is important that we, collectively, send a message that we value our devolved responsibilities. In supporting the motion today, we can meet that challenge and, prior to the introduction of the UK Government’s railways bill, send a strong signal that is wholly in keeping with the efforts over the past 20 years. We are hugely proud of Scotland’s railway, and it should be afforded the power that it needs to secure the best possible outcomes for the people and businesses of Scotland and deliver the improvements and the extension of services that the people of Scotland want, need and deserve.”
“On where we go from here, we need investment, but we also need to ensure that people understand that railways and transport investment are not only about services that provide a contractual arrangement for going from A to B, but about communities, resilience and the economy. With regard to freight, which was mentioned, we have been able to reintroduce the rail freight grant this year. Finlay Carson: rose— Fiona Hyslop: I am sorry, but I really need to bring my remarks to a close. We have ambitions for the railway, and we have had success in bringing together track and train in Scotland, but I continue to have concerns about the UK rail reform bill. I appreciate the reassurances from Lord Hendy—whom I have had meetings with and will continue to meet—that he does not want to see a diminution.”