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 9 of 12.
“To ask the Scottish Government what support it will provide to ensure that rural communities have access to public transport. (S6O-04792)”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. That the Parliament agrees that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.— [Jamie Hepburn] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motions will be put at decision time. Decision Time 17:14”
“I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-17896 and S6M-17897, on approval of SSIs; S6M-17898, on approval of a laid document; and S6M-17899, S6M-17900 and S6M-17901, on designation of lead committees. Motions moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Restitution Fund (Scotland) Order 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: Statement of Complaints Handling Principles (SPSO 2025/01) be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 1.”
“The intention behind the order is therefore to create a consistent approach to the assessment of planning applications of any proposed development within the 0 to 12 nautical mile zone in Scotland by extending marine planning zone boundaries out to 12 nautical miles. The provision supports the Scottish Government’s commitment to clarify the consenting process for aquaculture development between 3 and 12 nautical miles, as set out in our programme for government. I am confident that the enactment of the provision will provide certainty to businesses and stimulate investment in Scotland, while offering reassurance to other stakeholders that the planning process for aquaculture is consistent and robust. The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is consideration of six Parliamentary Bureau motions.”
“It is important to understand that my colleagues and I believe that we need to push some fish farms further offshore to reduce their impact, but does the cabinet secretary appreciate that we want the industry to learn not from mistakes but from good practice? Putting the SSI in place is effectively putting the cart before the horse, and the Government runs the risk of making the same mistakes offshore as it did inshore. Mairi Gougeon: I do not quite understand the member’s point. If I may focus on the SSI, we are trying to close a gap in legislation, which I think is the perfectly right thing to do. As I said, in recent years there has been increasing interest from aquaculture businesses to move further from the coast.”
“Despite the tireless efforts of health and care staff, they are stretched to breaking point. It is a tragic irony. Waiting lists in Dumfries and Galloway are at record highs, with just 31 per cent of patients being seen within 12 weeks, a staggering 763 waiting longer than one year and 10 waiting more than two years. Scotland’s NHS is not just under pressure; it is on life support. We need immediate, decisive action to address the workforce crisis. We need a Government that listens to the professionals, that plans for the future and that delivers on its promises. The people of Scotland deserve better, and it is time that the Government delivered. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We now move to the final speaker in the open debate. 15:37”
“The local integration joint board promised 31 flexible beds, rather than reopening four cottage hospitals— something that the community overwhelmingly supported. However, the number has been paused at just 22 beds; in fact, the board has not even reached that as it tries to manage a £14 million overspend. The Government continues to ignore the unique needs of rural areas such mine, which has one of the largest ageing populations in the UK. Let us not forget the human cost. One of my constituents has been told that he must wait 52 weeks for a cataract appointment, which is far beyond the 12-week target. It was suggested that he should take private treatment at a cost of £3,000, but he cannot afford to. Now his job is at risk. That is not just a statistic—it is someone’s livelihood and someone’s future.”
“Meanwhile, the Scottish Government’s plan to deliver 100,000 extra GP appointments has been criticised by the Royal College of General Practitioners, because the workforce simply is not there to deliver it. It is a headline-grabbing promise with no substance behind it. In my constituency, the consequences are painfully clear. Mothers in Wigtownshire still have to face a journey of more than one and a half hours along the treacherous A75 to give birth in Dumfries, despite the presence of a fully equipped maternity unit at the Galloway community hospital in Stranraer. That is because NHS Dumfries and Galloway lacks the resources to staff the community hospital. That is not just inconvenient—it is dangerous. The same goes for care beds.”
“The SNP promised to increase GP numbers by 800 by 2027, but that target is slipping further out of reach as GP numbers decline and junior doctors struggle to find jobs. The Royal College of Nursing has made it clear that current staffing levels are inadequate. Yes, the number of nurses employed by the NHS in Scotland has increased, but so have staff absences and reliance on costly agency workers. That is not sustainable; it is a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. “The Nursing Workforce in Scotland 2025” report shows that demand is outstripping supply. We urgently need better data and more robust planning to ensure a sustainable workforce for the future. Without it, we are simply guessing—and guessing wrong.”
“Despite repeated promises to bolster front-line support and staffing, the stark reality is that that simply is not happening. I know it, members know it and the public certainly know it. If members were to knock on any door in my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, they will hear the same concerns: a lack of GP appointments, a shortage of NHS dentists and long waits for hospital treatment. These are not isolated issues; they are systemic failures across Scotland. Now we face a paradox that lays bare the dysfunction that is at the heart of this Government’s workforce strategy: we have underemployed GPs who, despite widespread vacancies, are unable to find sufficient work, and we have newly qualified paramedics and paediatric nurses who are struggling to secure roles, even as vacancies remain unfilled.”
“How many times have we sat in this chamber and listened to successive health secretaries assure us that Scotland’s NHS is safe in their hands? Now we hear the First Minister making similar promises, claiming that, under his leadership, things will be different and that the NHS will be a priority in the coming months. Really? Let us not forget that this out of touch SNP Administration has been in charge for nearly two decades, yet our health service continues to lurch from one crisis to the next. That alone speaks volumes about the Government’s abject failure to address the workforce crisis—the cause of our problems. Yes, the pandemic added pressure, but the truth is that Scotland’s workforce planning was in disarray long before Covid.”
“There are all the strategies, the natural capital innovation zone, the regional land use partnership and the framework that is being developed on the back of that. All of that is happening because we want to invest in the area and see it succeed. I recognise that there are issues, a lot of which were drawn out in the consultation and some of which the member has touched on. That is why the next steps that we take are so critically important, and we have to take time to get that right. NatureScot’s report has recommendations on building on existing structures. We want to have those conversations to see how we can move forward in a way that will benefit the people and communities of Galloway and south and east”
“We know that national park status brings more than £10 million a year of direct funding from the Government. Is that money still on the table, or is this just one more betrayal by a Government that has given up on Galloway? Mairi Gougeon: Again, there is a lot in there that I absolutely disagree with. I refute those allegations about Galloway and its region, because we recognise how significant Galloway, Ayrshire and the south of Scotland are. That is why we have invested so much in the region across a number of different organisations. A lot of work is on-going in the area at the moment. There is all the work that South of Scotland Enterprise is undertaking. There is the work of the biosphere.”
“Today, the Government made it clear that it wants to tear down the welcome to Dumfries and Galloway signs and put up no entry ones instead. Why is it that every idea that this incompetent, useless Government touches falls apart? Why is its only ambition for Galloway to turn the region into a dumping ground for wind farms, with no local jobs? The cabinet secretary knows that she could have brought forward plans for Galloway that supported farming and forestry and helped them thrive. She could have built something special and made a change for the better. Instead, she has taken the easy way out and walked away. This do- nothing Government has failed to set out an alternative to its inaction. There is no plan B to fix a local economy that is built on low pay, and there is no action to stop the fastest depopulation in mainland Scotland.”
“On how we move forward from here, as I said in my statement, I recognise how heated the debate has become and the divisions in communities over the park proposal. That is why I wanted to set out as early as possible how we are moving forward on receipt of NatureScot’s report. As I outlined in my statement, some of the suggestions and proposals that have come through the detailed consultation and engagement process are really valuable. It is important that we take time to consider them fully and to get this right before we set out how we will move forward. I am more than happy to meet Finlay Carson to discuss that further and to hear whether there are any other potential avenues that he would like us to explore. Colin Smyth: For too long, Galloway has been Scotland’s forgotten corner.”
“That is what NatureScot has given due consideration to through all its rounds of consultation, as much as anything else. It is not fair to criticise the process leading up to that point. Extra steps were added to the process to ensure that there was a bottom-up approach. I know that Finlay Carson will have met the Galloway National Park Association, which I first met when I was appointed as a minister in 2018 and which has been building a campaign from that point. I appreciate that members might not have had the opportunity to go through the full detail of the reports that were circulated before the statement but, in its report, the Scottish Community Development Centre identified that the proposal was built on significant engagement work that had taken place up until that time.”
“How do you intend to rebuild trust with the communities that feel that the process has been mishandled from the outset? Does the cabinet secretary have any plans to amend the current legislation to address some of the identified shortcomings? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak though the chair. Mairi Gougeon: Finlay Carson has raised a few important points that I want to address. First, on the criticism of the process, it has certainly not been top down. He makes accusations that it was predetermined from the start, but that is not the case. If members look at the announcement that we have made today, they can see that the process was always about listening to what the people of Galloway and Ayrshire want to see in their area.”
“However, although the decision is correct, the process that led us here has been deeply flawed. The Government’s approach was marked by poor communication, shifting expectations and a lack of transparency. Communities across Galloway invested time, energy and hope in what should have been a positive process of bringing communities together to improve a region. What we ultimately got felt like a top-down and predetermined process. We were continually told that a Galloway national park would be different, but we were never told how. We should have had an independent review of existing parks so that lessons could have been learned to form a firm foundation for the creation of new parks. Cabinet secretary, can you explain what specific evidence or community feedback informed your decision not to designate the national park?”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for the early sight of her statement. I declare an interest as a proud Gallovidian who was born and bred in one of the most historic and beautiful places in the world. In the previous session of Parliament, I and others initially supported a Galloway national park lite that focused on much-needed sustainable economic development. However, my support and that of others changed when the Bute house agreement saw Green minister Lorna Slater push forward a top-down proposal that felt more like a Green nationalist park than a community-led initiative—a designation imposed rather than a designation requested. I welcome the Scottish Government’s decision. That outcome rightly reflects the views of the majority of local residents, land managers and businesses.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. Meeting closed at 18:08. Correction Alasdair Allan has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.”
“A lot of the conflict between those with animal welfare concerns and those who wish to do the culling has been resolved by seeing that it is also in the beasts’ interest that they do not overpopulate. Jim Fairlie: Christine Grahame makes a very good point, and it is exactly the kind of thing that will come out of the Common Ground Forum. The forum has certainly put us in a better place now than we were a few years ago, and I am very pleased with the work that it is doing. Indeed, everyone involved was recognised at last year’s nature of Scotland awards. I take a great deal of interest in the views of those who do this work every day, and I very much look forward to the opportunities that the Common Ground Forum presents to us as we move forward. I should also say that I look forward to not having lynx in Scotland.”
“[Interruption.] I am saying this in all seriousness, because it takes pressure off, for example, India’s tiger populations. Jim Fairlie: Every day is a school day. I did not realise that that was happening, and I thank Kenneth Gibson for giving me a nugget of knowledge that I now cannot get out of my head. I do welcome the fact that he has given it to us, though. As I have said, I want us to work together, both in Government and on the— Christine Grahame: Will the minister take another intervention? Jim Fairlie: Yes. Christine Grahame: The minister used the phrase “a necessary evil”, but I said in my speech that it was not a necessary evil, but a welfare issue.”
“However, it is not the same in the lowland parts of Scotland, and we need to find some way of putting in place in those areas a model similar to that established with deer managers in highland areas, in which they can find common ground. It is a perfect example of good practice. As we look forward, I want us to move away from the idea that deer management is a necessary evil. That is certainly not my view. Instead, I want us to work together, both in Government and on the— Kenneth Gibson: Will the minister take an intervention? Jim Fairlie: I will happily take an intervention. Kenneth Gibson: I am not going to talk about wolves or lynx, but I wonder whether the minister supports the export of deer pizzle to places such as Taiwan, for example, where it is used as a replacement for tiger penis in soups as an aphrodisiac.”
“In that respect, I very much look forward to meeting the British Association for Shooting and Conservation next week to talk about lowland, as opposed to upland, deer management—I am going out on another stalking evening. I get that there is a real issue here. We must recognise that, when we talk about deer management, we are talking about two different things: lowland deer management and upland deer management. The deer management groups in the Highland areas are a much more organised and well-put-together set of people who know exactly what it is that they are trying to do. There can be conflict, but when it happens, that is where the deer management groups come into their own.”
“I recently had a meeting on how local authorities and food providers can get involved with local deer managers to find out how to get venison into schools, hospitals and any other place where we can get the product consumed. That is exactly what we all want to see. We have introduced reforms to deer legislation through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, as has been mentioned, but that is just one part of the deer programme. Those changes are important, and that bill is intended to support our work on tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, but I know that legislation alone will not achieve our aims. We can achieve them only if we have a collective effort and skilled deer managers across the country.”
“Will the minister join me in congratulating NHS Dumfries and Galloway, which has been working with Forestry and Land Scotland to get wild venison on the menu in its hospital in Dumfries, on being one of the first national health service boards to embrace that sustainable and climate-conscious addition to the diet? Jim Fairlie: Absolutely—100 per cent. I endorse that approach, and the work that is going on in Argyll and Bute. People are starting to get involved in a number of different things, right across Scotland. My colleague Ariane Burgess mentioned the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022—I am now going off script, so members will have to bear with me.”
“They are not small-scale, community-led projects but industrial-scale developments that are often driven by external developers with little local accountability. Meanwhile, our planning system is overwhelmed. Dumfries and Galloway Council’s planning department is under immense pressure, with delays and backlogs that prevent proper scrutiny. Applications must be assessed strictly in order of receipt, regardless of scale or urgency— an approach that benefits developers and not communities.”
“Like many colleagues who are here today, I support the principle behind the motion, which is the expansion of community-owned energy in Scotland. However, principles must be matched by practice, and that is where I am going to rain on the cabinet secretary’s parade, because in Dumfries and Galloway that is simply not happening. The Scottish Conservative amendment rightly states that “community consent needs to be at the heart of energy production”, yet I do not believe that that principle has ever been taken seriously in my region, and it is still being routinely ignored. In just the past three years, the energy consents unit has approved 30 wind farm, pylon and battery storage schemes in Dumfries and Galloway. Many of the wind turbines are over 150m in height, and some exceed 200m.”
“However, community energy is not the only way in which our communities can secure benefits from the energy transition. Reflecting on Maurice Golden’s question to me, shared ownership, where communities take a share in a commercial renewable energy project, can also offer communities significant opportunities, and we are committed to supporting communities to access such opportunities. CARES offers support for communities that are looking to invest in shared ownership, providing free-to-use online guidance and resources. The scheme can help communities to access funding and contractors for project management, financial matters and legal matters, and it can ensure that all communities have all the information to decide if that sort of ownership is right for them.”
“Knoydart is not connected to the national electricity grid and generates all its own electricity through a single hydroelectric turbine. Knoydart Renewables Ltd, or KRL, supplies most of the energy in Knoydart, and it is responsible for maintaining a 28kW hydro-power system. CARES recently provided funding to refurbish Knoydart’s hydro-power scheme. That work means that it will be able to meet the peak power requirements for the community for another 40-plus years, and that has allowed new properties to be built and to be connected to the islanded electrical network. Those projects, which are led by a wide range of communities, with their different geographies and priorities, demonstrate the impact that community energy can have.”
“What protection do your plans give to communities that do not want any more wind power infrastructure or any more battery storage? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Gillian Martin: This debate is about communities that want to have their own community-owned schemes, rather than being anything to do with planning or consents. If the member has specific concerns on planning and consents for developments, that is a separate subject, which he can write to me on. I am happy to answer all his questions on that, but I am concentrating now on community energy, which is proving to be a great boost for the communities that take forward projects. Community energy also has a role to play in supporting off-grid communities such as the Knoydart peninsula.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that the generous amount of additional time that we had in hand is close to being exhausted, so I encourage members to stick slightly more closely to their allocated speaking times. I call Foysol Choudhury. You have around four minutes, Mr Choudhury. 16:18”
“Are we equipped to address the scale of the climate change and nature crises, or does our structure hinder us in doing so? The question is whether tweaking the existing system is enough or whether more substantial reform is needed. Effective scrutiny is not about opposition for its own sake. It is about ensuring that legislation is well crafted, that policies are evidence based and that citizens’ voices—especially those of people who live in rural areas—are heard and respected. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry is an opportunity to reset the balance by building a committee system that is independent, effective and truly fit for purpose. I urge all members to support meaningful reform that will not simply improve our processes but strengthen our democracy.”
“Although the architects of the Parliament created physical spaces such as the infamous members’ thinking pods, our systems do not always allow time for reflection. If consensus is our goal, why does it remain so elusive? We should explore options such as having more but smaller committees, which could meet fortnightly, or separating committees’ inquiry and legislative functions. Perhaps we could have ad hoc bill committees, as the House of Commons does. The two Scotland acts that we have had since 1999, along with our exit from the EU, have significantly increased our policy load, as has the increasingly popular adoption of framework bills. Framework bills result in significantly more work for committees, as secondary legislation is where all the heavy lifting is done. Has the Parliament adapted?”
“Does Finlay Carson agree that, as part of that process, consideration should be given to the geography of the area that the member represents, the skill set that they have and the lived experience that they possess? Does he agree that we should be in a position to pay far more heed to that than we can do at the moment? Finlay Carson: I absolutely agree. I appreciate that intervention. As Martin Whitfield will know, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee meets on a Wednesday. I believe that that decision was taken to ensure that members who represent our more remote communities could always attend without it impinging too much on their family time and without their having trouble getting to Parliament after the weekend.”
“There also needs to be continuity in the clerking team. Fifthly, although I welcome the committee’s commitment to achieving a gender balance and eliminating single-sex committees, we must go further—we must support participation by underrepresented groups, including members of ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and representatives of rural and island communities. We must also reflect on whether our institutional architecture supports thoughtful, evidence-based decision making. Martin Whitfield: One thing that is buried away in standing orders is a member’s expertise to be on a committee. That is a factor that should be taken into account by the Parliamentary Bureau when it considers membership of committees.”
“In a diverse Parliament, we must ensure that all voices—especially, from my perspective, those from rural and island communities—are heard. Secondly, we must address continuity. The high rate of turnover that I have witnessed in my committee weakens institutional memory and disrupts inquiry flow. Continuity builds expertise and trust, which are essential for effective scrutiny. Thirdly, there needs to be better follow-up and accountability. Too often, committee reports are published, debated briefly and then forgotten. We need to have structured processes so that we can track implementation and revisit inquiries. Fourthly, committees must be properly resourced. Effective scrutiny requires time, expertise and support. That means investing in our fantastic clerks, our research staff and access to data.”
“On the flawed set-up, for example, the Scottish Conservatives have been clear: the Government majorities on most committees have created a culture in which scrutiny is sidelined, legislation is nodded through and dissenting voices are drowned out—not by debate but by design. The concern is shared across parties. The Scottish Greens noted that committee inquiries “frequently lead to no action.” The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations expressed frustration at the lack of follow-through. Scottish Labour acknowledged that committees have not fulfilled their intended role. So, what can we do? First, we must reform committee composition. The commission on parliamentary reform recommended smaller committees and elected conveners. However, smaller must not mean less representative.”
“From my experience convening the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee—which covers agriculture, fisheries, animal welfare, rural development and island communities—I have seen how vital it is for committees to be informed and empowered, yet our ability to scrutinise is often constrained by the very structure of the committee. Effective scrutiny requires an environment— both physical and cultural—in which decisions are well informed and solutions are robust. However, the dual role of committees as both legislative and scrutiny bodies restricts their capacity for inquiry and often turns them into mini chambers. We need structural reforms to make committees more open and less bound by party lines.”
“I am pleased to contribute to this important debate on the effectiveness of our parliamentary committees. Although I am convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I speak in a personal capacity. The inquiry comes at a critical time, when public trust, transparency and accountability are paramount. Committees are the cornerstone of scrutiny in our unicameral legislature. They are where legislation is tested, stakeholders are heard and detail is examined, yet the evidence presented to the inquiry shows that our current system is falling short. I recognise the dedication of committee members across the chamber, many of whom invest significant time and effort. However, we must also be honest about the structural, procedural and cultural barriers that limit our effectiveness.”
“That is not an issue that the FPA Committee has considered, but it is clear to me that conveners of all parties can already play a key role in strengthening the effectiveness of their committees. However, they must be prepared to set the tone for all members to work in a constructive, non-partisan way and ensure that the necessary processes and practices are in place to support impactful scrutiny. I look forward to hearing the other contributions to the debate. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Richard Leonard to speak on behalf of the Public Audit Committee. 15:20”
“Being from the Government party, I work hard to gain the trust of and build solid relationships with committee members from across the political divide, and I am sure that they would agree that I have never shied away from asking difficult questions of Government and other witnesses. I allow members the space and time to pursue their own lines of questioning and create opportunities for us to work together on business planning days and fact-finding visits. I seek to consult members and represent the collective view prior to meeting ministers and stakeholders and when speaking to the media on the committee’s behalf. I understand that the SPPA Committee is considering whether elected conveners would strengthen the Parliament’s committees and, if so, how.”
“However, we do not discuss as a committee what we are going to explore; it is up to every individual member to decide that. I find that, 80 to 90 per cent of the time, everything is covered. If one or two items are left out, I tend to cover them at the end, and I always ask witnesses whether they have any further points that they wish to make. I had started to say that that sink-or-swim approach encourages members to develop their own knowledge and pursue particular areas of interest, leading to effective and impactful scrutiny and to members feeling invested in the committee’s work. Finally, I want to emphasise the importance of the convener setting the tone for consensual and impactful scrutiny, which Stephen Kerr emphasised in his intervention on Martin Whitfield. Leadership is important.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Kenneth Gibson: If I will get the time back, I am more than happy to take another intervention. Finlay Carson: There are sometimes calls for some of the less popular aspects of a bill or other scrutiny to be covered by prepared questions. Certainly, in the committee that I convene, there is a need for some questions to be asked that might not result in a clip or that do not concern aspects of the bill that members are interested in pursuing, but that does not mean that those areas do not need to be covered. Kenneth Gibson: To digress slightly, I note that what usually happens in the FPA Committee is that I open and cover a number of topics, which is followed by members exploring them in greater depth.”
“On that note, I agree with Finlay Carson that an SPS agreement—that is, an agrifood deal—is a good thing for farming communities such as those that he represents. I agree that that is so, and I agree with him about the shortcomings of the UK Government’s position in relation to the 12-year straitjacket that it has agreed to. Given his constituency interest, Finlay Carson might have asked about—but did not—the impact of the deal on trade with Northern Ireland, which is part of the European single market. We very much hope that the deal will be of benefit to trade between Northern Ireland and Scotland, and, by extension, the rest of Great Britain. That is the position that the Scottish Government holds.”
“The biggest threat to the inshore fisheries and the agriculture sector, however, is the total lack of progress made by the Scottish National Party Government and its abysmal failure to deliver sustainable and profitable inshore fisheries management or, nine years on, a fit-for-purpose replacement for the common agricultural policy for our farmers. When will this Government stop pointing the finger at failures elsewhere? When will it pull its finger out and step up to its responsibilities to deliver a just transition for our fishing, farming and food sectors? Angus Robertson: I am sure that the Presiding Officer wishes me to concentrate my remarks on the subject of today’s statement.”
“There is no doubt about the significant negative impact of the deal on the Scottish pelagic and demersal fishing industry as a result of the complete capitulation of the Labour Government. That said, many inshore fishermen and farmers in my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries will welcome changes to the sanitary and phytosanitary checks, allowing more friction-free access to European markets for our time-sensitive exports, including scallops, langoustines, lobsters, salmon and Scotch beef.”
“As a fellow species champion, I am pretty sure that the idea is not to encourage people to eat the species, but I might have got that wrong. I now call Rhoda Grant to be followed by Ben Macpherson in around four minutes. 18:26”
“Although volunteer effort is vital, we must also adopt bold policy measures, such as embracing a circular economy and phasing out single-use plastic items such as wet wipes, cotton buds, cutlery and straws. Behavioural change is essential, but it must be supported by strong legislation and co-ordinated action. The Marine Conservation Society has rightly called on all UK Governments, including the Scottish Government, to work closely with stakeholders to tackle the crisis head on. This is not an insurmountable challenge, but it will require a serious shift in public attitudes, robust policy intervention and continued support for the volunteers and organisations who work tirelessly to protect our coastlines. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Carson.”
“For some additional context, I can share the following data points that are specific to Dumfries and Galloway. The region saw a 287 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of litter items per 100m of beach. It recorded 41 items of sewage-related debris per 100m, which is one of the highest rates of any local authority in Scotland, and it had 45 items of drink-related litter per 100m, the third highest in Scotland, highlighting the urgent need for effective deposit return schemes and package reform. However, I know that much of that litter comes straight from the A75, which winds its way along the Solway coast for much of its length. It is not a problem that we can clear our way out of.”