Scottish Parliament, 30 October 2025

232 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time. As it is the shortest question session that we have in the week, concise questions and responses would be appreciated.

For question 1, I call Richard Leonard.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I hope that you were not getting at me.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the modernisation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. (S6O-05074)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has conducted a public consultation on its service delivery review to consider how its services should best be configured to ensure that firefighters are in the right place at the right time. The responses are being independently analysed and will inform final decisions of the SFRS board.

The SFRS plans to redeploy resources that are freed up by any changes that it makes to provide a greater resource to its prevention and protection function, and to boost training provision to ensure firefighters can continue to keep all our communities safe from the changing risks that they need to respond to, while also investing in fire station facilities.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Two years ago, the minister admitted to me that the Scottish Government had handed over £1.7 million of public money to the French company Systel to set up a single command and control system, but it was botched. Now, Motorola, which was given the contract 12 months ago, is already running behind and, within six months, was £10 million over budget.

When will the minister get a grip of this latest information technology disaster at the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, instead of threatening to cut the number of fire appliances, cut the number of front-line firefighters and cut fire and safety emergency cover at fire stations and in communities across Scotland?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I have to be clear that the primary driver for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s proposed changes is not financial. The chief fire officer has said publicly that, if he had all the resources that he needed, he would still be considering the changes.

I met Mr Leonard in 2023 to discuss these issues. I will ask for an update on the situation, and I am happy to meet him again to discuss the IT issues.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Although it is welcome that house fires have decreased by 20 per cent over the past 10 years, we have witnessed an emergence of new threats, such as the rise in wildfires. Can the minister say something about the importance of the fire service’s ability to adapt to those new risks?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

It is welcome that dwelling fires have reduced, as have non-fatal fire casualties—by 33 per cent—and that fatal fire casualties reduced by 32 per cent between 2009-10 and 2023-24. That shows the value of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s prevention activities over the years.

The rationale behind the service delivery review is to ensure that the SFRS can better focus its resources where they are needed most—for example, on training and prevention—so that our firefighters are better located and prepared to deal with current and future risks, such as the record number of wildfire warning periods that we have seen this year.

I appreciate that service changes will always be a matter of concern for people in the immediate vicinity of the impacted fire station, but it is for the SFRS, as the expert in its field, to decide the best changes that can be made over time to ensure that firefighters are in the right place at the right time to deal with incidents when they occur.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with national health service boards regarding their winter resilience plans. (S6O-05075)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government continues to engage with NHS boards regarding winter resilience planning. Boards have been asked to provide assurance that robust plans are in place to manage system pressures. Those discussions focus on ensuring safe, effective services and maintaining system resilience during periods of pressure.

The forthcoming national planning priorities and principles will set out expectations and provide a consistent national approach, and boards are expected to align their local plans accordingly. That process supports co-ordinated planning across health and social care and ensures readiness to respond to increased demand over the winter period.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

NHS Grampian will be nearly £50 million over budget by the end of the financial year, and the Scottish Government has said that it will be allowed to go only £45 million over. KPMG has said that increases in staffing levels do not align with a decrease in the total number of beds. As we head into winter, there will be increased pressures on Aberdeen royal infirmary at a time when services are already stretched. NHS Grampian still has the lowest bed base in Scotland per head of population, and ambulance stacking is a major issue.

There are no beds and no money. Does the cabinet secretary have any solution for my constituents and NHS Grampian as we enter winter?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I had a productive meeting with the chair and the chief executive of NHS Grampian a couple of weeks ago, as well as visiting ARI’s emergency department and other parts of the hospital. I believe that they are bringing forward measures that will help to improve resilience and performance, as well as the financial picture.

However, I stress that the work that has been done through the assurance board, which has been delivered as a result of NHS Grampian’s escalation, is, first and foremost, about improving performance and then the financial picture. We have put more money into NHS Grampian to assist with its unscheduled care pathway and emergency pathways, and I expect that to bear fruit in the coming period.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The Scottish Government has tightened its criteria for Covid vaccinations in the NHS, which means that boosters will no longer be offered to adults who are under 75. I understand that that decision follows advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. However, as winter approaches, many people are concerned.

What reassurance can the Scottish Government offer those who are no longer eligible for the Covid booster? Is it not concerned that removing the booster from under-75s might lead to an increase in Covid cases, which will put pressure on services as we head into winter?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As Ms Mochan has set out, we are guided in our vaccination programmes by the advice of the independent expert Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Its advice is that the groups that are eligible for Covid-19 vaccination this winter—not just in Scotland but elsewhere in the United Kingdom—are residents in care homes for older adults, those aged 75 and over, and those aged six months and over who have a weakened immune system.

I understand that the groups that are no longer eligible, which include the 65-to-74 cohort, those who are at wider clinical risk and front-line health workers, might feel anxious. To them, I say that the overall threat of Covid has, thankfully, diminished over time, due to high levels of vaccine-based immunity and naturally acquired immunity from infection.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the status of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s service delivery review, following the public consultation, which closed on 17 September 2025. (S6O-05076)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service received more than 3,500 responses to its review consultation and held more than 40 public meetings. The review was in reaction to the changing nature of emergencies that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service responds to. For example, as I have already noted, dwelling fires have reduced by 20 per cent since 2013, and incidents such as flooding and wildfires have increased significantly. Therefore, it is right for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to carefully consider how to adapt to the changing risks, in order to remain effective and efficient, with firefighters in the right place at the right time.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

In fact, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has refused to confirm whether, given the overwhelming support in local consultation responses for the retention of two appliances at Lochgelly fire station, it will act accordingly and keep both appliances. Therefore, for the benefit of my constituents and the chamber, can the minister clarify the purpose of the consultation? Surely such equivocation risks the entire process being viewed simply as a sham.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

As I have said, I believe that it is for the chief fire officer and his commanders across the service to make the decisions that are best for the service, in order to protect communities across the country and respond to the changing nature of risk. This is not a decision for the Scottish Government, and it is appropriate that decisions on fire appliances are best placed with the service.

As I have outlined, an independent analysis of the responses to the consultation will inform the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s final decisions. Any changes that the service introduces will be made over the next five years. I meet the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service frequently, and it has confirmed to me that no decisions have been made.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s consultation proposes closing eight fire stations and changing several others from 24-hour, whole-time cover to day shift only. The minister says that that will put officers in the right place at the right time. However, given that the service’s median emergency response time is the slowest for more than a decade, how does the Government expect those changes to improve response times or enhance public safety?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Regarding the response time that the member mentioned, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service continues to respond to every emergency incident with the appropriate level of resources. Its targeted approach to risk and the allocation of resources overtook the focus on response times some years ago, and I would also point out that we have seen an increase in response times across the whole of the United Kingdom.

The safety of our firefighters is of utmost importance, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has in place strict health and safety policies that have evolved over the years. For example, changes to operational procedures to stop firefighters travelling under blue-light conditions while putting on personal protective equipment have added to response times in recent years. That is an essential change to protect firefighter safety.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address reported rises in waiting times for social care assessments and packages in Fife. (S6O-05077)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government acknowledges that there is a reported rise in waiting times for social care assessments. It has protected and prioritised additional investment in social care, despite an extremely challenging budget settlement. That includes almost £2.2 billion for social care and integration, which exceeds by almost £350 million our commitment to increase funding.

Under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, local authorities and health and social care partnerships have a duty to assess the social care support needs of people and give due consideration to those assessments in order to arrange suitable and timely services when required.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In Fife, over the past year, there has been a steady increase of 60 per cent in the number of people waiting for assessments. The number of people who have been assessed and need a care package has increased over the past year by 127 per cent. We talk about percentages, but those numbers relate to real people.

Does the minister accept that, unless we tackle that issue, we will not tackle the massive problems in acute care in our hospitals? Will he agree to look specifically at the issue in Fife, given that those sustained increases are causing major problems for the elderly and vulnerable across the area?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Alex Rowley for the typically constructive spirit in which he raises the issue. I met senior leadership at Fife health and social care partnership yesterday, and I will follow that up. I recognise the excellent and innovative work that is taking place in Fife. I assure Alex Rowley that the Government absolutely recognises the importance of timely assessment and delivery of social care packages, including how that relates to the wider pressures that we face across health and social care.

A significant amount of work has been undertaken collaboratively, which has been led by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and we continue to engage closely. I will follow up on the engagement with Fife health and social care partnership, and I am more than happy to keep Alex Rowley informed of any developments.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. (S6O-05078)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Both ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of all national health service boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to local people. My most recent engagement with the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde was on Tuesday at Bute house, when we discussed, among other things, the fact that Scotland has falling waiting times, reduced waiting lists and higher planned care activity.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The Scottish Government is well aware of the concerns that Unison representatives and I have about the impact on vulnerable older adults of the looming closure of ward 36 at the Royal Alexandra hospital. With winter coming up, now is clearly not the time to be cutting beds. In fact, I am told that Scottish Government money for winter pressures has been used to accommodate vulnerable adults in other parts of the hospital, while ward 36 admissions are limited. That is exactly what staff at the RAH warned would happen, and it is coming to pass, despite a petition with more than 7,000 signatures.

First, the Scottish National Party Government came for the children’s ward at the RAH and closed it. Will it now let the ward for our older folk close too, and ignore the views of hard-working NHS staff and patients yet again?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I remain of the view that such changes should be carefully considered and decided locally in a way that is consistent with national policy while being meaningfully informed by the views of local stakeholders, including staff and patients. As I have said when I have met and corresponded with Mr Bibby and Unison on the matter, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has been clear that the changes are about providing appropriate, high-quality, safe and sustainable services for older adults in Renfrewshire. Ward 36 has, for some time, been used for patients awaiting home care or a care-home placement who are otherwise medically fit for discharge. In line with national policy on shifting the balance of care and minimising delayed discharge, the health board has been directing those resources to support local hospital-at-home services.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reported concerns raised by the Scottish Music Industry Association about delays in and sufficiency of funding awards, how it will ensure that the additional £20 million allocated to Creative Scotland for its multiyear funding programme in 2025-26 effectively supports the growing number of music-specific organisations. (S6O-05079)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government has increased Creative Scotland’s multiyear funding by £20 million this year, providing a major boost to Scotland’s culture sector. That investment provides stability for organisations to plan and deliver high-quality programmes in theatre, visual arts, literature and music. Forty-six music organisations now receive multiyear support, which is more than double the previous number, and support for three more is potentially in development for 2026-27. Many multidisciplinary groups also include music, further strengthening the impact of our support.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

In the recent independent review of Creative Scotland, UK Music highlighted that Scotland’s music sector generates more than £857 million and sustains more than 7,000 jobs. However, UK Music stressed that funding volatility threatens grass-roots talent, touring and economic sustainability.

I appreciate and understand budgetary pressures. However, how will the cabinet secretary ensure that Creative Scotland delivers strategic, predictable and resilient investment, in particular for emerging artists, self-releasing labels and rural organisations, through 2025-26 and beyond?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The good news for Michelle Thomson and the music sector is that the introduction of multi-annual funding puts an end to the volatility that many organisations have previously had to put up with. No other part of the United Kingdom has multi-annual funding such as this Government has introduced for the Scottish culture sector, and such funding has an important impact on the music sector.

If the member has specific examples of funding volatility at present, I would be grateful if she let me know. The new system has been introduced, so that should not be the case.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting local cultural activities and festivals to encourage economic development and tourism. (S6O-05080)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government is investing an additional £34 million in Scotland’s culture sector this year, which is moving us closer to fulfilling the First Minister’s pledge to invest at least £100 million more annually by 2028-29.

The uplift strengthens Creative Scotland’s multiyear funding programme, which supports 251 organisations across 27 local authority areas, and expands flagship initiatives such as the Culture Collective and creative communities Scotland. That investment boosts participation, supports jobs and drives cultural and economic growth nationwide. VisitScotland’s latest survey shows that history and culture are one of the biggest attractions for visitors and help to secure Scotland’s place as a world-class cultural destination.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, over the past weekend, Paisley had its annual Halloween festival, which is the largest of its kind in Scotland. It ensured that thousands of buddies were in Paisley town centre on Friday and Saturday night. During the same weekend, Paisley received the award of Scotland’s town of the year. Is Paisley leading the way as the perfect example of how cultural investment is an important part of town centre regeneration?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am grateful to Mr Adam for highlighting the range of interventions and events that are taking place in Paisley. He underlines the fact that the Government is committed to supporting cultural and arts events right across Scotland. Paisley is a really important part of Scotland’s cultural landscape, and I am grateful to him for highlighting the many great events that take place there.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes general question time.

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Claire Inglis was a loving and happy young mum who was tortured and murdered by a man whom she had just begun a relationship with. The judge described Claire’s murder as “beyond sadistic”. The serial criminal who killed her had 40 convictions and was a known danger to women and children, yet he was repeatedly bailed to the home that Claire shared with her young son. Claire’s parents, Fiona and Ian, have spent four years fighting and pleading for information, and they are here today. It is their third time coming to the public gallery during First Minister’s questions. Does John Swinney agree that no family should be forced into the media glare and on to the political stage to get answers from Scotland’s justice system?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Findlay has raised the tragic case of Claire Inglis with me before, and I had the pleasure—thanks to the assistance of Mr Findlay’s staff—of being able to meet Mr and Mrs Inglis on their previous visit to the Parliament. I extend my sympathy to Mr and Mrs Inglis for the tragedy that they have experienced.

I agree with Mr Findlay that no family should have to suffer as Mr and Mrs Inglis have suffered. The issues in connection with the handling of the case surrounding the perpetrator of the murder of Claire Inglis are being explored by the Crown, and the Lord Advocate has taken independent decisions on the matter.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Ian and Fiona are here out of devotion to their daughter and a determination to force the full truth from the authorities. As a result of their pressure, the Crown Office instructed a social work expert to investigate the circumstances of Claire’s murder. The expert’s report is truly damning. It says that Claire Inglis and her son were “invisible in the system” and that the repeated granting of bail to Claire’s home was “a major safeguarding lapse”. The Crown asked the expert to establish whether system defects caused or contributed to Claire’s murder, but Fiona and Ian have not been told the answer to that critical question. That is because the Crown gave them only a brief summary of the report. Will John Swinney back the release of the full report?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There will be issues in relation to the release of the full report that I am not sighted on today. The Lord Advocate has, in her period in office since 2021, brought to Government an intense focus on the awful experience of victims in our criminal justice system. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has undertaken to bring the perpetrators of heinous crimes to justice. I will therefore ask her whether there can be further dialogue with Mr and Mrs Inglis on the contents of the report in order to ensure that the issues about which they remain concerned can be properly and fully aired.

There may well be issues in relation to data handling, with which Mr Findlay will be familiar, that constrain the release of the full report. If the report can be released, I am very happy for it to be released, but there may well be reasons why it cannot be. I will ask the Lord Advocate to engage further with Mr and Mrs Inglis to ensure that they can have a fuller understanding and to help them to come to terms with the tragic loss that they have suffered.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I agree that the Lord Advocate’s focus is sincere and welcome, but the way in which the Inglis family is being treated is cruel and disrespectful. In 2022, Stirling Council held a serious incident review of Claire’s murder, which concluded that a full review was not needed. The expert disagrees, saying that a comprehensive review is “absolutely necessary”. However, to the astonishment of Fiona and Ian, the Crown Office says that it has still not decided whether their daughter’s murder merits a fatal accident inquiry.

Fiona told me:

“When we came here last year, we looked John Swinney in the eye and took him at his word that our questions would be answered, but we are still being kept in the dark.”

Will John Swinney back the family’s calls for a fatal accident inquiry?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am trying to be as helpful as I can. I hope that Mr Findlay understands the sincerity of my engagement on the issue. The calling of a fatal accident inquiry is a matter for the Lord Advocate independently. I understand that Mr Findlay is able to call for such inquiries but, as First Minister, I have to respect the independence of the Lord Advocate. For me to act otherwise would contravene my oath of office, which I will not do.

The process of investigation that was originally conceived of in Stirling Council was not acceptable—it was not good enough. That is why I asked the Crown to look at the matter again and why Mr Findlay has the report in his possession. That was at my instigation; I judged that the initial inquiries were totally unsatisfactory.

There is a matter of further consideration as to whether a fatal accident inquiry would shed any more light on the issue than the exercise on which Mr Findlay has the report. However, I will raise these issues directly with the Lord Advocate and ask her for her consideration of the matter, to ensure that Mr and Mrs Inglis have as much support as possible to come to terms with the loss that they have suffered.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Another reason why an FAI is absolutely critical is that the Crown’s report reveals a major flaw at the heart of Scotland’s bail system. It says that

“social workers are not obligated to verify bail addresses”,

which explains why a violent criminal who was a known danger to women and children was repeatedly bailed to Claire’s home address. The report describes that as a “systemic flaw”.

My party has published a paper today setting out changes that are needed to fix Scotland’s justice system and to put victims first. Fiona and Ian have urged the Government to back that specific change so that courts must check the veracity and safety of addresses. They say that that could prevent another family from suffering such a tragedy. Will John Swinney commit to urgently ending the bail blind spot that is putting women and children in danger?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am familiar with the points that Mr Findlay has raised and, as always with issues that relate to the criminal justice system, we will give them consideration.

I hope that this provides some degree of reassurance, but under the recent legislation that the Parliament approved, the single bail test makes it clear that the court should specifically consider the protection of the victim from the risk of physical and psychological harm before making a decision on bail. In my view, that would provide the type of protection that Mr Findlay is looking for, and it is already in statute.

I appreciate that that is of absolutely no comfort to Mr and Mrs Inglis in the loss that they have suffered, but I hope that it reassures members of the public that the Government is taking action to ensure that the type of experience that Mr and Mrs Inglis have faced will be mitigated in the future because of the steps that we have taken to change the law.

I will, of course, give consideration to the points that Mr Findlay has raised and, as always, I will be happy to see Mr and Mrs Inglis, if that would be of any assistance to them.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney and the Scottish National Party are failing to keep Scots safe. On John Swinney’s watch, our justice system is in crisis, as Scots are paying the price of SNP incompetence. This week, Scottish Labour revealed that there are 10,000 outstanding warrants for arrest in Scotland. That includes seven warrants for murder, five for attempted murder, 40 for rape, 1,253 for assault, 72 for domestic violence and 605 for drug charges. There are potential murderers, rapists and drug dealers on our streets. With 10,000 outstanding warrants in Scotland and prison numbers outstripping capacity by several hundred, apart from letting criminals out early or not arresting them at all, what will John Swinney do to tackle the crisis?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The first thing that I would say, to give some context to the issue that Mr Sarwar is raising, is that Scotland is a safer place since this Government took office. Recorded crime remains below the position immediately prior to the pandemic in 2019-20 and is down 39 per cent since 2006-07, when this Government came into office.

I acknowledge that, at any moment, there will be outstanding arrest warrants. The execution of warrants is an operational matter for Police Scotland, which remains focused on the investigation of crime and on keeping communities safe. Police numbers are well supported in the country; the latest official statistics show that there were 16,427 police officers as of 30 June 2025, and there remains a healthy recruitment pipeline for police officers in Scotland.

The Government is taking action to address the size of the prison population, but there are significant constraints in relation to the proposals that the Government puts forward for which prisoners can be considered eligible for early release. Those standards will be rigorously applied in all that the Government takes forward.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That is a woeful answer to the fact that there are 10,000 outstanding arrest warrants in Scotland. John Swinney is unable to admit to his Government’s failure, but if he will not listen to me, maybe he will listen to people who are working on the front line. Only yesterday, the Prison Officers Association published a report that says that our prisons are at crisis point, with

“serious overcrowding and understaffing ... increased levels of violence, widespread drug misuse and self harm”

and

“plummeting staff morale”.

Unbelievably, his justice secretary said yesterday that the SNP will not build any more prisons because, in her words,

“If we build them, they will come.”

Angela Costner—sorry, I mean Angela Constance—thinks that having more prison places encourages crime, but letting criminals out early discourages crime. That might be one of the most incoherent and stupidest things that I have ever heard in my life. What are they going to claim next—that building more hospitals will somehow make people in Scotland more ill? Who does John Swinney agree with: Angela Constance or prison officers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

One of the many flaws in Mr Sarwar’s argument as he has just put it to me is that the Government is currently implementing the proposal to build HMP Glasgow to a design capacity of 1,344 prisoners, which will add 357 places to the overall prison estate. That debunks the nonsense that Mr Sarwar has just put to me in his diatribe.

There is a serious issue that the Parliament has to address, which is this: because of the successful prosecution of people who have committed serious crimes—many of them historic—in our society, people are serving longer sentences. Therefore, there are more long-term prisoners in our prison estate. Of the 8,000 or so prisoners who are currently in our prison estate, 2,000 are on remand. A proportion of those prisoners will not end up in the system on a long-term basis. Therefore, there are judgments to be made by the criminal justice system, independently, about the issues in relation to whether an individual should be on remand.

The other issue is about short-term sentences. There have been umpteen reports—indeed, a report that has been welcomed warmly by Mr Sarwar’s colleagues in the United Kingdom Government was produced by David Gauke, who was a very imaginative Secretary of State for Justice in the Conservative Government. Mr Gauke’s report indicates the issues that have got to be considered about short-term prison sentences.

There is a debate that must be had here in the Parliament—which my justice secretary is undertaking with numerous statements to the Parliament and a comprehensive committee appearance yesterday—about the appropriateness of prison in all circumstances for all prisoners.

I do not want my comments to be misunderstood. People who have committed heinous crimes and have been sentenced to long-term imprisonment should serve those sentences. However, there are debates to be had about the appropriateness of prison in all circumstances, because of the pressures on the prison estate. There must be appropriate disposals for individuals. Community justice authorities, the funding for which the Government has substantially increased, have a role to play. All those factors are relevant in a rational debate about the prison population, and I hope that Mr Sarwar is able to contribute to that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney and the Scottish National Party have been in charge of the justice system for 18 years—nobody else. On their watch, the entire justice system is in chaos. The fact that all the SNP has to offer is bizarre comments and rank incompetence proves that we cannot risk a third decade of this incompetent SNP Government.

We face rising levels of violent crime, the legalisation, in effect—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

SNP members do not want to hear it, because that is their record.

We face rising levels of violent crime, the legalisation, in effect, of shoplifting and the existence of 10,000 outstanding arrest warrants, but what does the SNP do in response? It bills the taxpayer £1 billion for a prison that was supposed to cost £100 million; it allows hundreds of drug dealers to walk free; it cuts police numbers; it closes police stations across Scotland; it lets criminals out early; and it pushes our prisons to breaking point. So when will John Swinney finally admit that his record—the SNP’s record—on justice is nothing short of criminal?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Sarwar said that everything that has happened to date is the responsibility of my Government. I accept that responsibility. I am a First Minister who stands here every week and takes responsibility—I do not dodge it for a moment. [ Interruption .]

We have listened to Mr Sarwar’s explanation. On this Government’s watch, the latest figures for 2023-24 show that recorded crime is at one of the lowest levels since 1974, and that it has gone down by 39 per cent since 2006-07. Police numbers are higher than when this Government came into office. Recorded crime is at one of the lowest levels since 1974. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Just a moment, First Minister. I point out that those who are attending in the gallery today wish to hear all questions and contributions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I point out to members of the public in the gallery and to members of the public who are watching at home that, in all that diatribe from Mr Sarwar, six months before an election, he did not offer a single solution to the issues that we face.

In addition, when it comes to him putting his finger on the button to vote for a budget that would provide for police numbers, prison officers and prisons, Mr Sarwar does not vote for the Government’s provisions. What we have heard from him is just rhetoric and hypocrisy. I am proud to defend a record that includes our having one of the lowest levels of crime since 1974, and I will set that out to the people of Scotland.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Scotland is a monumentally unequal country. There are a small number of people who are sitting on more wealth than they could spend in 1,000 lifetimes. About 420 people own almost half of our private land, but, this morning, thousands of children will have gone to school hungry because of poverty. The Scottish Government’s own recent report showed that the top 2 per cent have the same amount of wealth as more than half the population combined.

This month, Scottish National Party members instructed their leadership to begin discussions with the United Kingdom Government about wealth taxes, but Scottish Government ministers have repeatedly rejected opportunities to tax wealth using the powers that they already have. They have rejected proposals to end tax breaks for big landowners, they have rejected proposals to end the King’s personal tax exemptions and they have rejected proposals to introduce a mansion tax. It is as though they are hoping that the public will not notice that, when push comes to shove, theirs is a Government that does not want to risk upsetting the rich and powerful. Can the First Minister name one proposal that he will bring forward before the election to tax wealth in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Greer will know from his detailed experience of engaging with the Government that we set out our tax proposals in relation to the budget, and that is exactly what the Government will do. We will give every consideration to those questions.

I am absolutely at one with Mr Greer’s concern about inequality in this country. That is why my Government is driven by the determination to eradicate child poverty, in which, as a consequence of the tax decisions that we have made, we are making progress in being the only part of the United Kingdom to have a falling level of child poverty, when it is projected to rise in every other part.

On some of the suggestions that Mr Greer has made, as he knows from his previous engagement—indeed, I have been engaged with some of these questions personally—we have explored some of the practical aspects of the proposals that he has put to us, and we have not been able to find a pathway that would work effectively without consequences that would be damaging to the policy intention. We have used the land and buildings transaction tax, for example, to weight tax charges towards the higher end of the income spectrum.

As I say, we will consider those issues in the formulation of the Government’s budget.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I look forward to discussions with the First Minister about the budget, because, as he mentioned, we have options. The reason why the Government could not agree to remove the King’s personal tax exemption had nothing to do with practical difficulties—I think that we can all understand why the Government did not support that.

There are options. Land and buildings transaction tax, non-domestic rates and council tax are all wealth taxes, and they are all entirely within the Scottish Government’s control. The largest single form of wealth in Scotland is property. Property wealth has surged by almost £100 billion in the past decade, but council tax is still stuck in 1990, so the poorest pay more than they should and the wealthiest get off with an absolute steal.

In turn, our local services are at breaking point. Families cannot get social care packages for elderly relatives. Children with additional needs go without the support that they need at school because the staff are not there. Community centres and libraries have closed. The Government promised to scrap the council tax 18 years ago, and this week it launched another consultation. The First Minister knows that that farce cannot continue, so will he commit today that, whichever options find the most support through the consultation, the Scottish Government will introduce a bill to reform or replace the council tax after the election?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In relation to council tax, the Government made and consulted on proposals for replacing the council tax when we put the prospect to the public in 2007, and we were unable to command a parliamentary majority on those questions. That is why we are trying to take steps with other parties to create a broader political consensus in favour of council tax reform, and we will endeavour to do that.

In the previous budget, for which we appreciated the support of the Green Party, we were able to deliver a much better settlement that improved the financing of local government. I pay tribute to Green and Liberal Democrat colleagues for voting for the budget, unlike everybody else in here, who was not interested in giving a better settlement to local government—at least the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP were.

We will continue to engage constructively to support local services, because I share Mr Greer’s view that we rely on local services to support the population in Scotland.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has had any initial response from the United Kingdom Government in relation to the letter sent to the Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs on 22 October regarding the fishing and coastal growth fund. (S6F-04404)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We have had no reply to that letter. Scotland previously received 46 per cent of the United Kingdom’s European Union fisheries funding allocation, compared with just 7.78 per cent of the new UK fund, which is spread over 12 years, with no guarantees beyond the current UK parliamentary session.

We are told that the UK fund is specifically aimed at revitalising the fishing sector, so allocations should reflect the relative size and importance of Scotland’s fishing sector. Scottish industry leaders have urged UK ministers to reconvene a meeting of the Scottish seafood industry action group to discuss the issue, and we plan to support that call in writing.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The recent funding announcement is yet another example of a UK Government that does not understand or care about our fishing and coastal communities.

Fishing is a hugely important contributor to the local economy in south-west Scotland, including in Kirkcudbright, where landing and processing take place. Given that, and given the pressures that the sector faces, which range from proposed cuts to quotas to dealing with the on-going impacts of Brexit, does the First Minister agree that the deal, which is an insult to and betrayal of Scotland and our fishing sector, cannot stand and must be reconsidered? What further steps will the Scottish Government take to protect and support the Scottish fishing sector?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I very much agree with Emma Harper’s point and reiterate to Parliament that Scotland previously received 46 per cent of the UK’s EU fisheries funding allocation, but the figure has now gone down to 7.78 per cent, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of fish in the United Kingdom are landed here in Scotland. That is completely and utterly inequitable.

I saw one of my parliamentary colleagues in the House of Commons asking whether the Secretary of State for Scotland had made any representations to ministers about that point. No answer was forthcoming, so it would be interesting to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland actually bothered to stand up for Scotland or whether this is just another example of the UK Government taking a decision that is prejudicial to Scotland.

I assure Emma Harper and colleagues who represent constituencies that have an interest in fishing that we will do everything that we can to get a different outcome for Scotland.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We know that 9 per cent of all fish landed in the UK comes through Shetland ports. Given that value, what percentage of the fishing and coastal growth fund can Shetland expect to receive via the Scottish Government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If I have my numbers correct, Beatrice Wishart said that 9 per cent of the UK’s fishing allocation comes into Shetland, but Scotland is getting only 7.78 per cent of the fund, which means that Shetland’s contribution to fish landings exceeds the allocation of funding for the whole of Scotland and beautifully makes my point about the inequity of the situation.

We will engage constructively with Shetland Islands Council. I am seeing the leader of the council later this afternoon and I am sure that we will discuss the issue. I can assure Beatrice Wishart that we will work collaboratively with the industry in Shetland, but the fundamental inequity is in the UK Government’s funding allocation, and that is the issue that must be remedied.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that Babcock, in Fife, has had to hire workers from overseas as a result of reductions in some college courses. (S6F-04394)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The latest data shows that there are already more than 14,000 full-time-equivalent college students on engineering courses in Scotland. We are working to support colleges to meet Scotland’s future skills requirements and are investing £750 million in colleges in the current year.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Employers in Fife, such as Babcock, are crying out for investment in local skills to drive local growth and opportunities, but college budgets have been cut by a staggering 20 per cent over the past five years and the number of apprenticeships has sharply declined by as much as a third in the past decade. The truth is that the Scottish National Party Government has categorically failed to maintain investment in the skills that local employers need to fuel economic growth.

A local college source all but confirmed that, although there is the capacity to provide many more courses, colleges simply cannot afford to offer those courses to students, given the financial situation that the Government has placed colleges in. This year’s funding allocation included a £1.3 million cut on top of a 19.4 per cent reduction in the past three years, with the principal of the college stating that

“The scale of the challenge”

is now “precipitous”.

Does the First Minister accept that the reduction in investment in skills is making it harder for young people in Scotland to access training and employment and for our businesses to recruit the local workers they need?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There are a number of issues in that question. I can confirm to the Parliament that more than 25,000 people started a modern apprenticeship in Scotland in 2024-25 and that 39,000 individuals were in training at the end of quarter 4 of 2024-25.

Regarding college funding, allocations from the Scottish Funding Council provide a 2.6 per cent sector increase in teaching funding for 2025-26 compared with the previous year, and no college had a reduction in teaching funding in 2025-26 compared with the previous year. In addition, the Government is supporting the funding of Fife College’s new Dunfermline campus, which will be available to local people. [ Interruption .]

Let me make a final point to Roz McCall, because I hear that I am being heckled by her and others. It is laughable for the Conservatives to come here and ask for more money for something if they will not vote for the Government’s budget. It is hypocrisy in action. We get it every year from the Conservatives, and I will call it out every time the Conservatives ask for more money in this Parliament.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that it would be helpful if we could hear one another.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister says that there has been a 2.6 per cent increase in funding, but a 2.6 per cent increase in one year does not undo a decade of underfunding of colleges in Scotland to the tune of 20 per cent. That means, as Colleges Scotland has said, fewer students being able to access a world-class college education. It is hardly a surprise, then, that we have a growing skills shortage and that firms such as Babcock are recruiting hundreds of welders from overseas just to keep work on track. All the while, nearly 250,000 young people in Scotland do not have jobs.

The Government’s choices are denying young people chances. Can the First Minister not see that? Why is he content to manage the decline of Scotland’s colleges and, in the process, deny Scotland’s young people the opportunities that they deserve?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We are, quite simply, not doing that, because the Government is allocating more funding to the college sector. We are investing in college infrastructure and, as I said to Roz McCall, we are just completing the investment in the new Dunfermline learning campus, with premises for Fife College.

The Government will sustain our investment in the college sector. We understand its importance. We see the significance of college funding in supporting the delivery of skills in Scotland, and that is at the heart of the Government’s budget—which, I point out, Pam Duncan-Glancy did not vote for, either.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is regarding the reported 200,000 public sector workers who are still waiting on their pension entitlement following the 2018 McCloud judgment on pension discrimination. (S6F-04397)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We recognise that the McCloud judgment affects the administration of pensions across the United Kingdom and that timelines have been extended to reflect the challenges of delivery. In Scotland, there are approximately 215,000 members of affected schemes that are administered by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. We should note that the vast majority of those scheme members have not yet retired and will make their remedy choice on retirement. Of the 65,000 retired members who are affected, many will already be getting the best-value pension. For those who have a choice that enables a higher pension, they will receive any arrears, including interest, to be paid for by the United Kingdom Government. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency is working to ensure that all those who are awaiting their remedy receive it, with the bulk of statements being delivered by the end of 2026.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

This has been described by those who are affected as a national scandal, and that is what it is. Public sector workers including nurses, police officers, firefighters and local government workers are still to receive pension funds amounting to tens of thousands of pounds.

Seven years on from the McCloud judgment on pension discrimination, 55,000 people are still waiting on pension remedy statements, which must be received before any compensation is paid. Some people have died waiting for their pension remedy statement from the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. It has broken at least two statutory deadlines, and it will miss a third deadline tomorrow. Delays are now expected to run until 2027. Every year in which a deadline is missed represents a cost to the taxpayer in interest payments of 8 per cent.

Does the First Minister agree that, after seven years, it is unacceptable that the SPPA has not put this right? Given that it is a Government agency, what action is the First Minister prepared to take to bring forward the work that is required to issue remedy statements and pay public sector pensioners on time? What further redress will he provide for those who are impacted by this debacle? Here, I am talking about those who have already retired on reduced pensions. He could at least agree—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms McNeill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

—that there is a need for urgency.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with that point. What I would provide as reassurance is that, when the remedy letters are issued, they will give a choice and, if a higher pension applies, the individuals will receive any arrears, including interest, which will be paid for by the United Kingdom Government. That issue has implications for the UK Government.

Work has been taken forward by the relevant minister, Ivan McKee. Colleagues know the assiduous way in which Mr McKee carries out his responsibilities. That has involved increasing the SPPA workforce by more than 30 per cent to ensure that experienced staff, who are necessary to calculate often complex recalculations of pension entitlement, are able to do so. I hope that that reassures Pauline McNeill that the Government has increased the SPPA’s resources quite significantly to ensure that we can make timeous progress on the issue.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

To ask the First Minister for what reason the Scottish Government has reportedly abandoned key provisions of the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022, including the proposed licensing system, as communities prepare for potential disorder during bonfire night. (S6F-04405)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The majority of the 2022 act has been implemented, including support for local authorities to implement firework control zones in order to tackle hotspots where disorder has been experienced. We have also introduced new offences of providing fireworks or pyrotechnics to children and of using fireworks to attack emergency workers.

The licensing system has been paused due to the cost of introducing it at present, but that will be kept under review. Anyone taking part in illegal activity or disorder can expect a robust response from Police Scotland, as demonstrated by the recent major seizures of fireworks.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Parliament passed that law more than three years ago to protect the public and our emergency services. There have been four bonfire nights since the law was enacted, and the constituents and emergency services that I worked with to introduce the law remain at their wit’s end. With respect to the First Minister, I note that firework control zones do not work without controls on purchasing.

Only the United Kingdom Government can ban fireworks, but the public consultation on the issue was one of the most responded-to consultations that this Parliament has ever run. In constituencies across Scotland, communities on the front line—mine is one of them—have become annual bonfire night war zones. Those communities deserve the use by Scotland of all the powers that we have available to us to help them, but they are now bracing for impact. Firefighters, police officers and paramedics continuously put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, and they deserve more than warm words—they deserve the delivery of the law. The licensing system is still undelivered, and vital fire stations such as Marionville, in my constituency, face closure. Public trust is on the line, so will the First Minister commit to looking again at implementing the law in full?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I reassure Ash Regan that a number of the law’s central provisions have already been implemented, including the prohibition on providing or making available fireworks or pyrotechnic articles to children, a new statutory aggravation for courts to use when sentencing offenders who have used fireworks to attack emergency service workers, the powers relating to firework control zones and new offences on possession of pyrotechnics in public places and at designated venues and events.

Very strong action has been taken, but I come back to the point that I made in my original answer, which is that anyone who takes part in illegal activity or disorder can expect a robust response from Police Scotland. That is what has taken place in the past, and I expect that to be the case in the future.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Animal welfare charities are raising concerns about the severe distress that fireworks cause to many animals. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has said that the delay in implementing the licensing scheme will prolong the period of unacceptable risk to animal welfare. Will the Scottish Government consider early implementation of licensing and restrictions on the days when fireworks can be used and sold in order to protect animals?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Those issues will be kept under review, as I said to Ash Regan. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety has liaised with the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission on our work to mitigate the impact of fireworks, including on how noise affects animals.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

The Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 remains only partially implemented, the Female Genital Mutilation (Protection and Guidance) (Scotland) Act 2020 has not been implemented, and now the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 has been quietly paused. That is only the latest example of the Government talking tough when passing legislation and then sneakily dropping it when it becomes inconvenient. How can the public have confidence that the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill will be fully implemented? Can the First Minister explain why the public—and, indeed, this Parliament—had to find out about the U-turn through the press instead of the minister?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I assure Sharon Dowey that the Government will focus intently on implementing the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. It has been legislated for by the Parliament and we are taking it forward, as we do with other legislation that is approved by the Parliament.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. I suggest that members be concise.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Last week, it was revealed that a fragment of waste found in April near the decommissioned experimental nuclear power facility at Dounreay was the most radioactive waste detected in the past three years. Despite those clear environmental warnings, United Kingdom Labour ministers are threatening to impose expensive, unsafe and unnecessary new nuclear sites on Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that Labour should see sense and abandon its nuclear obsession?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government has been consistent in its opposition to the development of nuclear energy in Scotland. We think that Scotland has a golden opportunity to develop renewables and should concentrate on doing so.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Police Scotland has ordered a director of For Women Scotland to attend a police station to face vandalism charges over a complaint about a broken umbrella. If she does not attend, she could be banned from Holyrood—a Parliament that is supposed to represent her, too. The optics of that for the Scottish Government are terrible. To many people, it looks like a threat to free speech and an attempt to silence criticism, silence women and intimidate that particular organisation. Who is protecting whom here? Does the First Minister agree that the police should focus on much more serious incidents than a broken umbrella? Does he think that Susan Smith should receive an immediate apology?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, let me reassure Tess White that I believe in free speech and think that it should be protected at all times in our society. Secondly, I understand from media reports and the contents of Tess White’s question that the issue actively involves Police Scotland. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case that is under active engagement by Police Scotland. If I were to do that habitually, lots of members of Parliament would complain about my doing so.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Insurance giant Maiden Life has suddenly announced that it is withdrawing the family protection plan that thousands of credit union members in Glasgow region have been paying into since it started in 1999. That immoral and callous withdrawal of the plan is causing widespread distress to my constituents in Glasgow and across the country. Does the First Minister share my condemnation of Maiden Life’s decision? Will he make a direct representation to the Financial Conduct Authority, along with the credit union working group, to demand immediate redress for the thousands of elderly Scots who will now be left unable to cover the cost of their funeral plans?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very sympathetic to the point that Mr Sweeney puts to me and will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to engage directly with him and make the representation that he asks for. Credit unions provide an essential foundation in our society, particularly for people who are on low incomes and have low savings levels. It is important that financial security is available to them.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I remind members that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

This week, the Scottish National Party Government announced the largest-ever investment in general practitioner services in Scotland, through the provision of more than £500 million over the next three years to support recruitment. Latest national health service waiting list figures show that long waits are down for the fourth month in a row, while NHS activity is rising. Those tangible results show what happens when an SNP Scottish Government delivers for Scotland’s NHS. What steps is the SNP Government—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

What steps is the SNP Government taking to build on that progress—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am sorry to stop you, Ms Haughey. Members, this is a matter of basic courtesy. Surely we can afford one another that most basic courtesy.

Ms Haughey, please continue.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. What steps is the SNP Government taking to build on that progress, boost capacity in our NHS and ensure that Scots continue to have access to the highest-quality NHS services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very pleased that we are seeing a decrease in new out-patient waits that last for longer than a year. I am delighted that we are seeing the total waiting list for out-patients, in-patients and day-case lists decreasing compared with that in the same month last year. I am delighted, too, that the number of treatment time guarantee waits for more than a year have decreased by 6 per cent when compared with those for last month. I am also delighted that the health secretary has managed to reach agreement with the British Medical Association’s Scottish general practitioners committee, which will see general practice receive additional funding of more than £500 million over the next three years. Given my commitment to deliver 15 walk-in GP clinics across Scotland, added to the falling numbers on NHS waiting lists, the Scottish people can look forward to a strong national health service under Scottish National Party leadership.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister may or may not be aware of the Moray Firth floating offshore wind park project—FLOW-Park—that it is proposed should be developed off Findhorn and Nairn, and which would create wet storage facilities for offshore wind platforms. I have already met fishermen who are deeply concerned about the proposal, and on 11 November I will attend a public meeting in which hundreds of people have expressed an interest. I do not want the First Minister to tell me that he cannot comment on planning or licensing applications. However, perhaps he can help me to answer the age-old question that his Government is failing on: how can I ensure that the communities in Scotland that I represent are better heard and represented in the decision-making process?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is a full range of different opportunities for those issues to be properly and fully considered. A huge amount of scrutiny is applied to applications of that type, and significant assessments are required, particularly for environmental reasons. Mr Eagle will be familiar with the contents of those, because they are part and parcel of statute. There are opportunities for engagement on all those questions.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the First Minister give us an update on the Sheku Bayoh inquiry? Can he assure us that we will not spend another £50 million on it and that it will be concluded timeously?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I very much regret that Lord Bracadale felt it necessary to resign from chairing the Sheku Bayoh inquiry. I want to place on record my admiration and appreciation—and those of the Government—of the service that Lord Bracadale has given to the inquiry, which I think has been exemplary, but I respect and understand his decision to step down. The Deputy First Minister has thanked Lord Bracadale for his work and is now engaging on how to progress the inquiry. We will keep Parliament updated on the steps that are necessary to do so.

As Mr Mason will know, we have to undertake statutory consultation on the chairing of the inquiry. That will be undertaken timeously, and we will keep Parliament advised of the steps that we take.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time.

Point of Order

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the past 12 hours, Police Scotland has been reviewing its decision to issue Susan Smith of For Women Scotland with a recorded police warning; if such a warning is not accepted, that leads to a charge of criminality.

Video evidence from a peaceful protest that was held outside this Parliament on 4 September, at which I and my colleagues spoke, clearly shows no evidence of criminality—such as vandalism—having been directed towards an individual who played loud music to drown out the voices of women peacefully protesting and calling for the Scottish Government to adhere to the Supreme Court judgment on biological sex.

The public must be reassured of their democratic rights, and that freedom of speech is valued by this Parliament, the Scottish Government and Police Scotland. What mechanisms are there to understand whether Police Scotland has had conversations with ministers regarding the incident on the parliamentary estate? Which mechanisms led to the police decision being reviewed? Does the Presiding Officer believe that all protests are equal and deserve to be safely facilitated, or only those that suit Scottish National Party ideology?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Hamilton. Ms Hamilton will be aware that the comments that she has just put on the record are not, in fact, a point of order.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Craig Hoy. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.

Bank Closures

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19202, in the name of Craig Hoy, on regretting bank closures. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament regrets the latest round of bank closure announcements from Bank of Scotland and other operators across Scotland and the UK; further regrets what it sees as the failure to properly consult with customers and local businesses before closure decisions are taken; notes the calls for all high street bank operators to consider adopting a “branch promise” to halt future closures and to prevent banking deserts developing; expresses concern regarding what it sees as the fragile future of rural banking, including in the South Scotland region, and notes the calls for Link and Cash Access UK to do all they can to fully maintain access to cash and banking services when high street banks close branches.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The rate of bank closures is a concern to members across this chamber, and I thank MSPs who supported the motion on a cross-party basis. As someone who believes in the free market, this is not territory into which I tread readily. Banks are commercial entities—I accept that. They are free to make their own commercial decisions—I recognise that. However, they also have a duty to their customers, particularly older customers and small businesses, many of which operate in small towns and rural areas, and to those who are not digitally minded or who are digitally disadvantaged. All of those people and businesses need to have a convenient place in which to meet their banking needs.

Since being elected, I have heard far too often from constituents who feel that high street banks have abandoned them. This list of closures in South Scotland is far from exhaustive: Bank of Scotland, Annan, closing; TSB, Penicuik, closed; Bank of Scotland, Moffat, closing; Bank of Scotland, Sanquhar, closed; Bank of Scotland, Thornhill, closing; Bank of Scotland, Duns, closed; Yorkshire Building Society, Dumfries, closing; Bank of Scotland, Dunbar, closed; Bank of Scotland, Eyemouth, closed; Santander, Hawick, closed; Bank of Scotland, Jedburgh, closed; TSB, Hawick, closed; Bank of Scotland, Langholm, closed; Bank of Scotland, Newcastleton, closed; Barclays, Ayr, closed; Bank of Scotland, Castle Douglas, closing; Bank of Scotland, Newton Stewart, closed; TSB, Haddington, closed; Barclays, Dumfries, closed; Royal Bank of Scotland, Tranent, closed; Bank of Scotland, North Berwick, closed; Bank of Scotland, Peebles, closed; TSB, North Berwick, closed; Bank of Scotland, Hawick, closed; Bank of Scotland, Selkirk, closed; and TSB, Selkirk, closed. In too many cases, those closures were the closure of the last bank in town.

I accept that this is a complex issue and that those closures are taking place in a regulated sector where the operating environment is changing fast, but banks make a great virtue of their environmental, social and governance credentials—indeed, the S in ESG reflects their duty to society. They say that they have a duty to support their customers and the communities that they serve, but that is all too often ignored when banks leave our high streets and simply pass the responsibility to Link and Cash Access UK.

Regulation of the banking and financial sector is reserved to Westminster, and I have been working with colleagues there on what needs to be done to reform how cash access assessments are determined. The current legislation and regulations are too blunt and fully fail to take account of special circumstances.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The issues that Craig Hoy outlines are reflected in Highland Perthshire, which is part of the area that I represent, and in many other parts of the country. There is also frustration that applications for banking hubs, which are a very valuable resource, are not being granted because of strict criteria. I have written to the Financial Conduct Authority about that. Does he agree that the FCA needs to revise its rules on where a banking hub can be granted?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I agree with Mr Fraser, particularly in relation to rural areas where the problem is most acute. For example, certain towns have high seasonal demand for cash or have particular demographics, and the current criteria do not reflect that.

That is definitely the case in Moffat in Dumfriesshire, where, in less than three weeks’ time, the Bank of Scotland will close its doors for the last time. That will leave this vibrant tourist and retirement town without a bank, an easily accessible high street ATM or a banking hub. The community is rightly concerned, and I commend Evelyn Atkins—who is in the gallery with her husband Bryan today—for leading the community campaign against the branch closure. Evelyn first asked for my support when she came into the bar at the Famous Star Hotel on a Saturday night to seek signatures for her petition. Through her hard work and tenacity, Evelyn secured more than 3,000 signatures, and her petition was recently presented in the House of Commons by my colleague David Mundell MP.

Moffat is a small town, but it has a large number of visitors and several cash-only businesses. Evelyn spent her career in banking and she is someone who understands what community banking should look like. However, despite the petition, several rallies, a public meeting held in conjunction with Age Scotland and, most recently, a meeting with a representative from the Bank of Scotland, held here in the Parliament with Oliver Mundell, the Bank of Scotland has refused to change course. Link Scheme believes that an upgrade to the post office provision will be sufficient, but many local businesses and residents disagree, and they now face a 42-mile round trip to Dumfries to access a bricks-and-mortar branch.

Digital banks might work for some and banking hubs might work for others. Community bankers visiting communities once a fortnight, for example, might be sufficient for some customers, but, for many, a traditional bricks-and-mortar high street bank remains a lifeline—often one that is used in times of distress, such as when scams are occurring.

The sad thing is that it does not have to be like that. I recently met the teams at Virgin Money and Nationwide in Dumfries, and they talked to me about their 2028 branch promise. As part of the merger agreement, every Nationwide and Virgin Money branch will stay open until at least 2028. Virgin Money also offers free accounts to community groups—a service that is, sadly, being withdrawn by other banks, which now charge for such accounts.

However, it is not all bad news, and let me offer praise where it is due. Alongside David Mundell and Councillor Julie Pirone, I was recently contacted by the Peebles Community Trust after the closure of the Bank of Scotland branch in the town. The trust sought our support to acquire the building, and I am pleased to confirm that, this week, it has been successful in its bid. That will let the trust move its reuse hub there and create space for a future banking hub, if Link Scheme determines that that would be necessary. The bank closure is regrettable, but I welcome the legacy move by the bank.

I believe that this debate will show that bank branches are a lifeline for many, and I hope that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to persuade banks to remain visible on Scotland’s high streets.

I will close with a direct appeal to the Bank of Scotland in Moffat. This is a special case, and those who know the town understand its unique needs. The closure is imminent, but the decision is not irreversible. I recognise that banks need to be commercially viable, but they have a duty to look after the communities that they represent. The pace of change is simply too fast for some, and the rate of closures is too high. Those customers have stood by their banks for decades. Their savings allowed the banks to lend, and public money bailed out the banks in 2008, but, sadly, for too many communities, those banks are now bailing on them.

I look forward to listening to contributions to the debate from colleagues from around the country. I just hope that bank bosses are listening, too.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is an awful lot of interest in participating in this debate, and I am keen to ensure that every member gets a chance to speak and their full allocation of time. I am also conscious that we are due to resume business at 2 o’clock, and staff will need time to prepare the chamber ahead of that, so I ask members to stick rigidly to their time allocation.

I call Jamie Hepburn, to be followed by Liam Kerr, to speak for up to four minutes.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Craig Hoy for lodging the motion. I very much agree with its premise. The notion of a branch promise, as he states in his motion, is very much worthy of consideration.

Thankfully, the Bank of Scotland branch in Cumbernauld is not one of the 13 that is set to close. However, my area has been hit hard by bank closures over a number of years—I will come back to that. Indeed, there will be very few of us, at best, who have not been impacted by those challenges.

To set the overall context, on 29 September, Which? magazine laid out the scale of the change that we have seen over the past decade, since January 2015. Across the United Kingdom, banks and building societies have closed 6,561 branches at a rate of around 53 a month. That represents 66 per cent of the branches that were open at the start of 2015.

In Scotland, the issue has been particularly acute. Scotland was the first area of the UK to experience the loss of more than half of its retail banks in that period. Of its 1,041 branches, 719 are now gone, and another 21 are set to go. That is 740 branches—or 71 per cent of the total number of retail banks that were in place in January 2015.

I do not want to overly politicise my comments today, because the debate is primarily an opportunity to set out a constituency concern, but it is also about how banks are regulated. Regulation remains in the hands of the UK Government. I observe that Mr Hoy’s party was in government for almost the entirety of the previous decade, although we see the trend continuing under the Labour Government.

I will talk about the local angle, as I think most members will do today. In 2017, we saw the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Kilsyth. I should declare an interest as an account holder with the Royal Bank of Scotland. In 2020, we saw the closure of TSB in Kilsyth, which left Kilsyth, a town of more than 10,000 people, without a single retail bank.

In 2022, Clydesdale Bank—I am sentimental, Presiding Officer; I will call it Clydesdale Bank rather than Virgin Money—closed its branch in Cumbernauld. Again, I should declare an interest as an account holder there. In 2024, we saw the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Cumbernauld town centre, which followed an earlier closure of another branch in the town. Most recently, in 2025, we saw the closure of Santander in Cumbernauld. I was recently in discussion with a constituent who talked about having moved their account from Clydesdale, because it closed in the area, to Santander, only then to face the loss of their local bank again.

As Mr Hoy said, the challenge is particularly acute in rural areas, but it impacts urban Scotland as well.

I will now focus on what might be an opportunity. It is not often that I agree with Murdo Fraser, who has now left the chamber, but I support the notion of banking hubs. I think that they could serve as an opportunity to pick up where we have lost some of the—

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

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.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to Craig Hoy for securing the debate. Bank closures are something that we are all too familiar with in Aberdeen. The lower Deeside area, which is a roughly 8-mile corridor between Anderson Drive and Peterculter, used to have eight banks. It now has none. All the communities in that 8-mile corridor, including Cults, Bieldside, Milltimber and Peterculter, are without a bank.

Imagine an older person with suspicions about the internet and phone banking, having seen all the fraud warnings; someone who is wary of banking apps with their artificial intelligence-driven helpdesk; one of the many businesses in that corridor that need to bank cash or withdraw a float; or someone who just needs to speak face to face with a staff member. Their nearest banks are at Banchory, which is a 35-minute bus ride from Bieldside—the midpoint of that 8-mile corridor—or at Queen’s Cross in Aberdeen, which is an hour-long trek involving two buses.

Craig Hoy’s motion calls for Link to do all that it can to maintain access, and rightly so. Link is a not-for-profit operation that, among other things,

“has a public interest objective to protect access to cash across the UK.”

One of its key roles, which is peppered through all its communications, is “financial inclusion”, to which end it runs a “financial inclusion programme” and

“supports the rollout of shared banking hubs in areas affected by bank branch closures”.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member give way?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I really do not have time—sorry.

It says that the location of banking hubs will be considered based on things such as distance to nearest cash services, and vulnerability and digital exclusion.

So is Link doing all that it can to ensure the financial inclusion of lower Deeside? Er, no. After an approach from Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber community council for a banking hub was rejected by Link, I got involved. I wrote to Link and pointed out that I speak to constituents every week at surgeries, in shops and on doorsteps, and they are telling me just how deeply they are affected by the loss of local banking services. Many are elderly, isolated and living with mobility issues. They are frightened of the internet, distrustful of online banking and increasingly cut off from the financial services that they once relied on. One woman in Culter told me that she had to ask neighbours to withdraw cash for her because she cannot manage the bus journeys. Another in Milltimber has not spoken to a bank employee in more than a year and feels invisible.

I pointed out to Link that its response to the community council assessment was fundamentally flawed in its scope, substance and assertions. Link reviewed my correspondence, rejected my evidence and concluded:

“This is my final response ... if you remain dissatisfied ... you can refer the matter to the Independent Assessor”,

whose role is to review the handling of the complaint, not the decision. Link has washed its hands.

I am dissatisfied, as are my constituents, because Link’s decision is based on a fundamental misunderstanding; does nothing for financial inclusion and everything for abandoning my communities; and looks like a classic piece of decision making by a body that has no base in—or, indeed, any knowledge of—the north-east.

I recently set up a petition that would show the strength of local support. It has hundreds of local signatures already. I have been contacted by local facilities, such as the churches and the Cults library team, offering to host a banking hub.

Let me be blunt: Link, there is a big local petition coming your way, with a reiteration of why your decision is so flawed and detail of some of the solutions that will make it easy to get to yes.

It is deeply regrettable that Link has failed to deliver the banking hub that is so desperately needed. However, I am sure that, once it has seen this debate, received my petition and reconsidered the arguments, it will choose to do the right thing by lower Deeside and give us the banking hub that we desperately need.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I sincerely thank Craig Hoy for bringing this matter to the chamber, because I agree 100 per cent with every word that he said.

Among other towns across Scotland, Larkhall, in my constituency, will be losing its high street bank, to the detriment of thousands of constituents and hundreds of businesses. In my interactions with the Bank of Scotland and Link, I was disappointed by their lack of compassion and understanding. Even when I proved to them that their assessment was wrong, they just shrugged their shoulders.

That loss will have the biggest impact on the most vulnerable in society, especially the elderly, who are most dependent on in-person services. Remember that, when the banks were on their knees, the Bank of Scotland understood perfectly what banks were—a necessity for the people. In 2008, we, the public—including all of us here—contributed to the £17 billion bailout. In addition, further loans were guaranteed for billions by the UK Government. There was a decision not to abandon them. However, they have abandoned us. They are abandoning Scotland’s high streets and semi-rural towns, putting shareholders and personal bonuses in front of long-standing customers. It is morally bankrupt.

Clearly, the free rein that banks have enjoyed in being governed by the old boy network has gone on for far too long. Their power has been abused, as the banks cannot be counted on to act in the best interest of their customers or of the economy. I whole-heartedly join the calls made in this motion—that banks should be compelled to keep existing branches open and to serve the community that ultimately supported them when they were almost down and out.

I also want to expose the fallacy that Link, the banks’ so-called independent assessor for these matters, is independent. Bank of Scotland cards say Link on them. In the discussions that I have had with Link, it has basically said, “I’ll need to get back to the bank.” When we speak to the bank, it says, “We’ll get back to Link.” They are all part of the same gang, and Link is just doing its bidding as instructed. Allowing banks to do as they wish should no longer be tolerated. We should use the powers that we have in the Scottish Parliament. We and our local authorities should take the banking that we do away from the banks that are doing this to our local communities.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Craig Hoy on securing the debate. Local banks are often a hub for many people, especially in small, close-knit communities. They are part of the social fabric of rural communities that is sadly ebbing away.

According to the Link group, some 2,209 bank branches have closed across the UK since February 2022, with around 233 of those in Scotland. There have been 40 closures in the Highlands and Islands region in that time. The number of branches closing has increased year on year up to 2025, although the number of closures has dropped this year—I suspect that that is because there are barely any branches left to close. Even just a few months ago, it was announced that Lloyds Banking Group was closing four of its Bank of Scotland branches, in Nairn, Dingwall, Gairloch and Tain. Communities are facing fewer and fewer banking options.

Although I welcome the work that groups such as Link and Cash Access UK do to step in when the big banks leave local communities, many of my constituents feel that the solutions are not adequate. Since 2022, Link has recommended that some 33 banking hubs be established across Scotland, but just three of those are in the Highlands and Islands region. When a hub has not been recommended, other, lesser alternatives have been suggested, such as a new ATM, a new assisted cash service and assisted counter services such as the cash hub in Lossiemouth town hall. Again, only on three occasions have communities in my region benefited from some of those alternatives. In fairness to Link, many of the impacted communities have local post offices, and I welcome the role that they play in stepping to fill the void that is left by bank branch closures. However, although post offices offer a range of services, they do not fully make up for the loss in expertise and enhanced services that disappear when a bank branch closes.

One constituent contacted me about their Bank of Scotland branch closing in Dingwall. They told me that their local branch is a

“lifeline to many older people”

and that the Bank of Scotland

“make you feel like it is an offence nowadays to do your transactions using a cashier at a desk.”

Although I welcome the measures that are being taken by some banks, such as Nationwide’s pledge not to close any branches until at least 2028 and Barclays halting closures for 2025 and 2026, the sad truth is that more closures will come unless banks figure out ways to diversify their branch offering and be more involved in their communities in order to increase footfall. That might seem like wishful thinking, but it should not be impossible for major banks to do things differently and to do more to protect the local bank branch rather than just concede and shut up shop.

This is about more than just bank branches closing. The closure of bank branches is one more reason for rural depopulation. The loss of such services in our small rural towns and villages is one more reason for people to leave and for people not to move into those areas in their place. We must do more to reverse this trend.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank Craig Hoy for securing this afternoon’s debate. As some members may know, I started my career with the TSB in Haddington. After a few years, I moved to the Bank of Scotland at the bottom of Morningside Road. I spent 22 years in the banking sector, working first as a financial adviser and then working in business and corporate banking. When I was in the Morningside branch, about 45 to 50 people worked in the branch, from the cash desk to business banking and customer inquiries. I remember the Thursday afternoon rush of people coming in with pay cheques and withdrawing cash. The rush around the Edinburgh trades holiday was also very busy—but that is enough reminiscing about the 1980s from me. Times have changed, with technology having changed dramatically and footfall in branches having dropped. The Morningside branch now has around six to eight members of staff compared with the 50 that I mentioned.

What can we do to tackle bank closures? Of course, we can all campaign to save bank branches—we have heard about that from many members in the debate—and sometimes the last one in town. As has been mentioned, all the towns in East Lothian have seen branch closures by all the banks. In October last year, my team and I contacted Link about bank closures in Dunbar, North Berwick and Tranent. Link is the co-ordination body that conducts assessments when there is a change in the level of cash access in a community, and it recommends new services when required. It has assessed the bank closures in East Lothian towns and villages. New rules on that were brought in around October last year.

Having submitted applications for North Berwick, Dunbar and Haddington, I was extremely pleased that new banking hubs were recommended for North Berwick and Dunbar. We continue to push for a hub in Tranent through Cash Access UK, which was asked to take forward the proposals. Public meetings were held in North Berwick, which Mr Hoy and I both attended, and members of the public were able to ask questions. I am delighted to say that the banking hubs are now open in North Berwick and Dunbar. The North Berwick one is in the old Bank of Scotland building.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I join Paul McLennan in welcoming the Dunbar and North Berwick banking hubs. However, does he share my concern that the hubs are not being fully utilised? On the two days when I last visited the Dunbar hub, there was no community banking facility in it. Will he join me in encouraging banks to use and take up the capacity of banking hubs?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Yes. Like Mr Hoy, I have visited the hubs and that issue has been raised. It is good that the hub in Dunbar is now moving to a permanent home, which I think means that there will be more bank representation in it. The permanent home will be open in the next few weeks and is in a renovated building that has not been used for a number of years.

Banking hubs help our business communities, and lots of businesses at the North Berwick meeting welcomed the hub there. Hubs support people who suffer from digital exclusion, and they provide key support for our communities. Let us all campaign against bank closures when we can, but let us also campaign for banking hubs and the support that they bring to our communities. One obvious solution is to bring banking regulation to Scotland under independence, so that we can make decisions that affect our own communities.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank my colleague Craig Hoy for securing this important debate on bank closures.

Since 2012, 6,000 bank branches across the United Kingdom have been closed. The most recent sad casualty is the Bank of Scotland branch in Hawick. That closure is a severe blow to customers, who have expressed shock and disappointment. A banking hub is proposed, which I welcome. If it works, that will be great, but constituents have said that they are concerned about the privacy of a banking hub. That is especially worrying for older customers in the current climate of scams and fraudulent activity—it is no wonder that they are worried.

My colleague Liam Kerr spoke about a constituent asking a neighbour to withdraw cash for her. I find that incredibly concerning, yet she is not alone in doing that. A partially sighted constituent to whom I spoke on the doorstep told me that she had given her banking card to a trusted friend, who took it to Berwick to get cash because there was no cash left at the local ATM at the Co-op in Eyemouth. That is incredibly worrying.

The closure in Hawick marks the eighth bank branch closure in the Borders since 2022, following closures—as Craig Hoy has said—in Eyemouth, Selkirk, Jedburgh and Duns. The common factor of those places is that they are small rural towns, and the closures have affected people who are the most vulnerable, including those who are over 65, nearly half of whom still rely on a physical banking service.

With the demise of our high streets, the minister should be concerned about the closures, because they are part of an ever-decreasing circle. Retailers and tourism businesses are closing, too, and the lack of access to cash does not help them, because small retailers still rely on cash, and people use cash because they want to be able to budget.

I agree with my colleague Craig Hoy about the limitations of the Financial Conduct Authority, which I met in London. Clearly, as we have all agreed today, many of the solutions are reserved. Nevertheless, we must ask the Labour Government to give more powers to the FCA, so that it can protect cash access in rural areas by reforming the access criteria so that they take more practical account of the challenges faced in those areas. Many of the problems lie in the assessment of the distance threshold for transport links and accessibility. Predominantly, relevant distances in urban areas are assessed as being within a mile, where at least 95 per cent of people will live, but we all know that that is not how rural towns operate. Rural towns also face challenges because commercial bus companies cannot operate viably there and so are withdrawing services, which means that the threshold is not relevant.

I pay tribute to a wonderful retired schoolteacher from Eyemouth, Margaret Carey, who has campaigned vigorously to get access to cash there.

Communities must also be empowered to have a realistic chance of making their case about the challenges in rural areas when they appeal decisions. It is extraordinary that communities are not consulted prior to decisions being made to close banking services.

I will continue to campaign to keep access to cash alive and to keep banks on the high street.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I congratulate Craig Hoy on securing this debate on an important matter that is, unfortunately, affecting a growing number of my constituents.

Saltcoats has been left with only one bank branch providing in-person banking services after the closure of Santander’s Chapelwell Street branch on 21 July. The situation is made worse by the fact that Saltcoats post office, also on Chapelwell Street, remains under threat, as it is a facility that banks often point to for basic banking facilities when they close branches.

Largs, a town of more than 11,000 inhabitants, with a sizeable number of tourists and day trippers, will be left with no bank at all when the Bank of Scotland shuts its Main Street premises in March. The loss will be keenly felt by residents and local businesses, and it will follow Royal Bank of Scotland, TSB and Clydesdale Bank closures. Whenever bank closures are imposed in my constituency, I contact bank executives to urge them to reconsider—as, I suspect, many members have done when their constituencies have been affected. However, it is always to no avail.

The new assisted cash facility recommended for Largs is welcome, but it is certainly not a substitute for bank branches that give customers access to friendly, face-to-face services and advice five or six days a week. According to the Bank of Scotland’s own figures, one third of its Largs customers rely on face-to-face banking services. Although I do not deny that the future of banking will be increasingly online—pushed by the banks themselves, of course—many customers, mostly the elderly and vulnerable, simply do not feel comfortable using online banking, especially given the prevalence of scams and cybercrime. A Newcastle Building Society study found that half of people aged 27 to 42 would also, in fact, rather visit the local bank branch if such a thing existed, to speak face to face instead of managing all their personal finances online.

Myriad constituents have been in touch to say that the decline of face-to-face banking is being portrayed as customer choice when, in fact, it reflects the bank’s own efforts to steer customers towards digital services. In Saltcoats, the bank said that it was about a lack of footfall, but I do not recall a time when I went to Saltcoats Clydesdale Bank, as it was, and there was not a half-hour-long queue to get served. I think that the footfall argument is often nonsense. The rush towards digital-only services has made it increasingly clear that communities such as Largs, Saltcoats and the Garnock Valley, where seven branches were extant a year ago, are being left behind by the banks.

The Labour Party is strong on rhetoric and opposition but abysmal on delivery in government. One of Labour’s 20 pledges to businesses was to stop bank branch closures. Its plan for financial services stated that it will

“accelerate the roll out of at least 350 ‘banking hubs’ which help people have free access to cash and wider banking services”.

As of today, I have yet to see a single banking hub open in my constituency—and it is not for the want of trying. When I contacted Link to request a banking hub for Largs, I was told that, because only 8,996 adults live near the high street, rather than the arbitrary figure of 10,000, it does not recommend a hub. Link is regulated by the UK Government’s Financial Conduct Authority, and its remit is limited to assessing access to cash, not wider banking services. The lack of a bank on the neighbouring island of Cumbrae was not taken into consideration either.

Frustratingly, powers over banking have never been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. During the passage of the UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, Labour MPs tabled amendments to introduce new clauses to enable the FCA to ensure access to banking services. However, the UK Conservative Government did not support the amendments, and the litany of bank closures that was read out by Craig Hoy transpired primarily when the Tories were in office. After nearly 16 months of a UK Labour Government, Scotland is seeing more and more bank branches close their doors forever.

People are seeing their high street bank branches disappear at an alarming rate, just as they have seen happen with their post offices. Although there is no magic bullet to reverse the trend, I urge Scottish ministers to work with Link and the UK Government to change the arbitrary population thresholds and to finally extend the FCA’s powers to include access to wider banking services.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Craig Hoy on bringing this debate to the Parliament, given the recent closures by the Bank of Scotland. My region, like his, is affected by these closures, and, as in his region, the closure of branches will cause real challenges for the many people whose local bank branch is increasingly far away and not so local any more.

The south of Scotland and the Highlands share more similarities than is often recognised. They both contain networks of smaller towns, many distant from each other, that still act as true commercial centres for their surrounding areas. They are places where small businesses are the lifeblood of our local economies, but the reality is that our lower population densities often mean that we are the first to lose out when services are centralised.

Although, in many ways, progress through technology has reduced some of the challenges of rurality, it has also created conditions that have allowed these communities to be left even more isolated than before. Only last year, I spoke in a members’ business debate brought by Rhoda Grant on the reduction of mobile banking services across the Highlands and Islands. As I mentioned then, I had previously participated in Dean Lockhart’s members’ business debate on the removal of cash machines, and I was a member of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee when it carried out an inquiry into bank closures in 2018. My concern is that we often focus on the alternatives, such as ATMs, online banking and mobile branches, only to find ourselves debating the loss of such alternatives at some point further down the line. That is simply not good enough.

Both the Scottish and the UK Governments have spoken of the importance of high streets and town centres, not only as the basis for retail but as focal points for communities—places to access public services and spaces where we can enjoy meeting each other. However, this further round of closures, coming after so many previous losses, demonstrates that the hollowing out of these places is continuing at pace. I do recognise that high streets and town centres will change and adapt in response to consumer needs, and that this cannot be a wholly one-sided appeal to preserve these areas in time. Increasingly, however, consumer needs—particularly those of our older residents, as Craig Hoy highlighted—are simply not being catered for in regions such as mine.

I welcome the action to promote and increase the number of banking hubs by Cash Access UK, with the co-operation of the major banks and the Post Office. Two such hubs now exist in my region—one in Forres, and, since only the summer, a new one in Wick. Both have been well received, even if it is clear that—

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will when I finish this point.

Both hubs have been well received, even if it is clear that some people remain unaware of the breadth of services that they offer. We must watch closely to see whether they become a truly viable and sustainable alternative and are able to grow at the pace that has been suggested. I, for one, would like to see more hubs across the region.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I put on record my thanks to campaigners who have been successful in getting banking hubs opened in Kirkcudbright and Newton Stewart in the past 12 months. Link was asked to review how it assesses these banking hubs, but that process still needs to be firmed up.

I ask the member to join me in calling on the FCA to consider a mandatory review of access to cash in towns before the last bank closes, to ensure that decisions in relation to towns such as Dalbeattie—the biggest town in Stewartry, which has been without a bank or a banking hub for some time—are reviewed again. I have been successful in the past month—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Be brief, Mr Carson.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

—in getting decisions in relation to Dalbeattie and Wigtown reviewed. We need that process to be introduced.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Carson. Jamie Halcro Johnston, I can give you some of that time back.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you—that is very generous of you, Presiding Officer. I certainly agree with Mr Carson, and, from the response that his intervention got on these benches, I think that that view is held more widely.

Just as significant is the Post Office network, which provides basic banking services in its branches. Even when sub-post offices close, pop-up branches such as the one that I was in only last Thursday, and which serves my home parish of Orphir in Orkney, continue to play an important role. In part, post offices across the UK have been protected by their access criteria, alongside a great deal of political will and continued commercial interests.

In many situations, however, it is only after those local services are lost that we appreciate their true value. The chief function of a face-to-face bank or Post Office branch might be to process transactions or do business, but how many banks have spotted customers being subject to identity fraud or scams? How many have been first to notice other financial crimes such as undue influence being exerted on a vulnerable person? How many play, or have played, an important social role in communities like those across my region? Access to cash is not, and cannot be, our only concern.

While the world is changing, there remains a need for face-to-face banking services, if not in bank branches in every village, at least somewhere that enables people to reasonably access cash when it is needed.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Craig Hoy on securing this important debate on bank closures.

Banks are more than just buildings; they are the focal point of our communities. The bank is where local businesses deposit their takings, where elderly residents manage their finances in person and where people can ask for advice or seek reassurance without resorting to an app or waiting in a frustrating telephone queue. In my region of Central Scotland, Bank of Scotland has announced the closure of branches in Bellshill, Larkhall and Grangemouth. I must declare an interest at this point, as I am a Bank of Scotland account holder and a customer of the Bellshill branch.

It is the perception of local people that banks are deciding on their behalf how customers should bank, and that is simply not acceptable. There are petitions under way across the region in an attempt to save those banks from closure in January 2026, and I urge residents in affected areas to look at those petitions and make their voices heard by signing them and opposing those closures.

Last Monday, I joined Councillor Richard Nelson, who organised a public meeting in the Larkhall area, to talk about how the community can work together to stop the closure. Banking hubs were mentioned, but it will come as no surprise to members in the chamber that, again, a banking hub for Larkhall has been refused.

I felt that the public meeting was very productive, and I note that the petition started by Councillor Nelson has already attracted more than 500 signatures. If Davy Russell would be so kind as to sign that petition and share it, we can work cross-party to stop the closure of the Bank of Scotland branch in Larkhall. The petition shows the level of interest from local people in stopping the expansion of bank deserts across Lanarkshire and other areas.

One petitioner who signed the petition has commented publicly that,

“As a pensioner with a husband who has dementia it’s difficult enough to deal with daily life without having to travel further afield to use a bank or lift money. I live in Stonehouse and have to travel to Larkhall to use a bank and now you are going to close it, I and my husband have banked with you for over 65 years and I hope you will reconsider and keep this branch open or better still give us a banking hub in Stonehouse”.

That petitioner is absolutely bang on the money with the points that she has raised.

Another interesting point that was raised during the public meeting was the semi-rurality of the area when it comes to residents in Lanarkshire trying to use public transport to reach the next nearest town where a bank has not been earmarked for closure. Only 32 per cent of households in Ashgill and Netherburn, and 45 per cent in central Larkhall, are within a 10-minute walk of high-frequency public transport, so closing the Larkhall branch will increase travel barriers for people. In my view, few or no impact assessments have been carried out on deprivation, digital exclusion or proximity to the nearest local branch.

Councillor Nelson has since written to Lloyds Banking Group asking for the decision to be reviewed. I back his calls and will continue to work with him and the local community to overturn the decision.

Turning briefly to the bank closure in Bellshill, I note that Lanarkshire Law Estate Agents, a firm of estate agents and solicitors, has picked up the mantle and started a petition, which, again, has attracted well over 500 signatures. I put on the record my thanks to the firm for the work that it is doing on behalf of the Bellshill community.

I want to close on this point: banking groups will lose custom if they continue to close branches in areas, as people have had enough of being forced to go digital by going cashless. That is why I back the calls today from my colleague, Craig Hoy, in seeking to raise the issue of bank closures and the need to investigate solutions to ensure that Scotland does not become a banking desert.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I pay tribute to Craig Hoy for securing this debate on high street banks in Scotland, the rate of closures and some of the issues that arise. Clearly, the concerns that he outlined are very familiar to many members around the country—particularly to those of us in more rural constituencies, such as myself, as the representative of Moray.

I remember a report from a few years ago that said that Moray was the hardest-hit constituency when it came to bank closures. Although we now have a banking hub in Forres and a cash hub in Lossiemouth, we have only one high street bank left outside of Elgin, which is in Keith. I therefore associate myself with Craig Hoy’s tribute to Virgin Money, whose bank branch that is.

Within the past couple of weeks, I have met Alison Moffat, Adam Featch and their great team there. I learned about Virgin Money’s banking promise, which has been outlined, to keep the branch open until early 2028, and about all the various services that are delivered there, including supporting customers with dementia, issuing SIM cards to people who are unable to have connectivity, helping people who have experience of domestic abuse, and providing other services such as working with local schools on entrepreneurial, banking and financial skills. The work that is being carrying out is tremendous. As others have said, it is a good example for other high street banks to follow.

I certainly share the concerns that have been expressed by many members. Jamie Hepburn outlined some of the stark statistics about the rate of bank closures in Scotland in recent years. Although the regulation of financial services is a reserved matter, the Scottish Government has been proactive in our engagements with the sector and with the regulator to advocate for Scotland’s interests. The issue has been debated and raised in the chamber many times.

The Government welcomes the FCA’s new regulatory powers on access to cash, which came into force in 2024. Ahead of the implementation of those rules, the Scottish Government provided feedback during the consultation process, which helped to lead the FCA to amend its definitions of “urban” and “rural” in the Scottish context, in recognition of our unique geography and the challenges that are faced in particular by rural and island communities, as members have mentioned.

We have also taken some practical steps. At this time last year, I convened a cross-party round table on access to cash and banking services, which brought together the FCA, Link, Cash Access UK, the Post Office and members from across the parties and which helped us all to get a shared understanding of the new rules that were coming in at that time. Under the new FCA rules, anyone who is concerned about access to cash in their area can make a cash access request to Link. There is also a right to appeal following an assessment decision. Of course, there are important safeguards, and I encourage individuals and community representatives to exercise their rights. It is great to hear about examples from around the country of people using that process. I will come back to concerns over the rejections of some requests.

The expansion of banking hubs across Scotland has been positively received by the communities that have benefited. We have a total of 16 hubs already, and another 13 are in progress. They bring together multiple banks under one roof and provide communities with access to essential banking facilities, allowing customers to carry out everyday transactions and speak to representatives from their own banks on dedicated days.

I remember a statistic from back in 2022 that only 14 per cent of transactions nowadays involve cash. The world is changing. However, as members have said, we need safeguards. Many members have eloquently outlined the concerns of vulnerable communities—in particular, elderly people—as well as certain parts of the economy such as small businesses in more rural communities in particular. High street banking still has a role to play, and some of the safeguards that we have talked about are crucial.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

In many respects, the closure of a bank removes the reason to visit a town. As the Scottish Government prepares for next year’s budget, will the minister make sure that the Government does nothing further that could impede our high streets?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We could have a separate debate about the future of high streets in Scotland. The small business bonus scheme, which has been in place for a number of years now, has been incredibly valuable to small businesses on our high streets. On many of our more rural high streets and those in smaller villages and communities, there are virtually no local businesses that pay rates. That is a very valuable instrument, it has been in place for many years now, and it plays a big role.

There have been a number of other activities in relation to the on-going concerns over the criteria for securing a banking hub. Many members have mentioned cases where that has been refused in the past. This month, representatives of the Scottish Government attended an FCA-convened forum on access to cash, at which we were able to raise Scotland-specific concerns about how our communities are being directly impacted. Those concerns were raised at the forum with the FCA, Link and Cash Access UK. We articulated a number of issues and gave some case studies based on insights that had been gained from lots of sources, including Citizens Advice Scotland, which highlighted Scotland’s particular rural geography, topography and demographics as compared with the rest of the UK. It has always been our objective to have specific Scottish concerns taken into account.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

At that meeting, were concerns raised around the demise or withdrawal of public transport in rural areas? Was that taken into account?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

A range of concerns were expressed by the Scottish Government at that meeting, such as the methodology used by Link to assess a community and decisions about the banking hubs. The frequency, duration and distance of public transport was indeed raised, as was the availability of transport in communities. The member should rest assured that that was raised at that meeting.

The FCA is now having a post-implementation review of a lot of the issues that we are discussing. [ Interruption .] For clarity, that is not me on the screen.

I assure the Parliament that, in that post-implementation review and following the forum, the Scottish Government will continue to make the strongest representations to the authorities to ensure that our concerns are taken into account.

Many measures on digital inclusion are under way. We launched two new funds to support digital inclusion work just this month, to the tune of more than £1.4 million, which is now available. The connecting Scotland digital inclusion fund and a CivTech challenge have combined UK Government and Scottish Government funding to support digital inclusion projects. The whole issue of digital inclusion is not divorced from the issue of the loss of high street banks. It is important that we take measures to ensure that people are not left behind and can access banking services through digital means if they are unable to access them through a high street bank.

I assure the Parliament that I recognise this very topical issue, and I urge all members to pay attention to the post-implementation review that is being carried out by the FCA, so that we can ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard.

Business Motions

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19481, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a business programme. I invite Martin Whitfield to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business—

Tuesday 4 November 2025

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions

followed by Social Justice and Social Security Committee Debate: Financial Considerations When Leaving an Abusive Relationship

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

10.00 pm Decision Time

Wednesday 5 November 2025

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care

followed by Scottish Labour Party Business

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

7.15 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 6 November 2025

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice and Housing

followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Strengthening Committees’ Effectiveness

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Tuesday 11 November 2025

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions

followed by Stage 1 Debate: UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

4.15 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 12 November 2025

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs

followed by Scottish Green Party Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.10 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 13 November 2025

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 3 November 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.—[Martin Whitfield]

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As members know, this item is an opportunity for MSPs to seek additions to the future business programme. In speaking to the business motion, I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to make a statement to Parliament about how we, as MSPs, can get answers from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Once again, the SPCB is in the news, because of the shameful conduct that we have seen in relation to a protest that Police Scotland was looking after outside this Parliament, whereby Susan Smith of For Women Scotland has been called to a police station to consider accepting a penalty notice from the police for the apparently heinous crime of touching someone’s umbrella, which—from the footage that I have seen—looked as though it was already broken before she even touched it. Frankly, it is ridiculous that that has happened, and I think that we need to question the corporate body about the matter.

Earlier today, Tess White put a question to the First Minister on the subject, but the response that she got was very disappointing. I tried to lodge an urgent question to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body today, but that was rejected by the Presiding Officer. I cannot question why it was rejected, because the Presiding Officer does not give her reasons.

Therefore, I thought that the best option was to seek a statement from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body next week, to allow us, as MSPs, to question it about the discussions that it has had with Police Scotland about the protest back in September and about the fact that one of our constituents has now been taken through the criminal process by Police Scotland for, as I mentioned, touching someone’s umbrella.

However, I believe—if I have read standing orders correctly—that there is no mechanism to seek a statement from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, and I think that that is a state of affairs that should change. Perhaps it is just luck and good fortune on my part that I am putting that point to the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in his role as a member of the Parliamentary Bureau.

I wonder, therefore, whether Mr Whitfield would consider asking the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to come to Parliament next week to suggest options whereby members of the corporate body would be able to provide a statement on the issue, which would allow us to question them. I believe that SPCB question time will not take place until 27 November, which is a long time away, and there are serious questions to be asked about the policing of the event back in September, the issues that have arisen over the past few days in relation to the penalties that Susan Smith may be facing from Police Scotland and the very welcome backtracking that we have now seen from Police Scotland.

If the SPCB can discuss those matters with the police in its role as the corporate body of the Parliament, it should be accountable to the Parliament. I hope that that will enable us to get answers on how the event was originally policed back in September, when one disruptive individual went above and beyond in seeking to destroy the efforts of two legitimate protests that were held that day, and subsequent police actions. We need answers from the very top, because what happened to Susan Smith did not get signed off by someone low down the chain in Police Scotland. It is clear that the decision went far higher than that. We need to know how what happened was allowed to happen, why it happened and what is going to be done to make sure that it never happens again.

I remind members of what is stated in my entry in the register of members’ interests: my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

It is as a representative of the Parliamentary Bureau that I will respond to Mr Ross’s request, rather than as the wearer of one of the other hats that I own, but all committees are open to receiving correspondence, and if Mr Ross would like to correspond about the provision in standing orders, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee would be the right committee for him to write to.

I thank Mr Ross for his contribution in respect of the business motion. He has highlighted the challenging area of the relationship between the Parliament and the corporate body. He has put his views on record, and I know that consideration of the issue that he has raised today will be taken forward in the various areas in which it should rightly be considered.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that motion S6M-19481 be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business—

Tuesday 4 November 2025

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions

followed by Social Justice and Social Security Committee Debate: Financial Considerations When Leaving an Abusive Relationship

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

10.00 pm Decision Time

Wednesday 5 November 2025

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care

followed by Scottish Labour Party Business

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

7.15 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 6 November 2025

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice and Housing

followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Strengthening Committees’ Effectiveness

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Tuesday 11 November 2025

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions

followed by Stage 1 Debate: UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

4.15 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 12 November 2025

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs

followed by Scottish Green Party Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.10 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 13 November 2025

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 3 November 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19442, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a timetabling extension at stage 1.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill at stage 1 be extended to 14 November 2025.—[Martin Whitfield]

Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is consideration of nine Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Martin Whitfield, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-19443 to S6M-19450, on approval of Scottish statutory instruments, and motion S6M-19451, on suspension of standing orders.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Aggregates Tax (Administration) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Councillors) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Commons) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Lords) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act (Postponement of Tax Pending a Review or Appeal) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act (Record Keeping) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of consideration of the second supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.—[Martin Whitfield]

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

I want to speak briefly to three of the motions on SSIs that are before the chamber today.

The regulations that are referred to in motions S6M-19444, S6M-19446 and S6M-19447 were laid as a result of amendments that I lodged, working with the Government, on ending the practice whereby members of the Scottish Parliament can also be members of Parliament, peers or councillors. There was unanimous backing for my amendments, and I worked very closely with the Government on them. That is what led to the laying of the regulations that are before us today.

My position is that being an MSP is a full-time job, and we should not be juggling that with being an MP or being in the House of Lords—or, indeed, after a period of time, being a councillor. The regulations on MPs and membership of the House of Lords set a short period of time after which those roles should end. The regulations on councillors set a slightly longer period of time. The reason for that is that we do not want a whole a raft of by-elections after a Scottish Parliament election, given that, in every Scottish Parliament election, a number of people who are elected as MSPs are also councillors.

I think that the regulations are extremely sensible.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

I will.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Mr Simpson, will you comment on the provisions that now make it clear that councillors should give up their allowances when they are in those dual roles? Could you also refer to and comment on your position?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Always speak through the chair.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

The regulations on councillors say that, if an MSP remains a councillor, their pay will be deducted by the same amount as their councillor pay—unless they receive extra pay as a councillor.

As I said, I fully support all three sets of regulations. They are sensible and will have public approval, and I commend them to members.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Simpson.

I propose to ask a single question on the nine Parliamentary Bureau motions. As no member objects, the question is, that motions S6M-19443 to S6M-19450, on approval of SSIs, and motion S6M-19451, on suspension of standing orders, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to.

Motions agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Aggregates Tax (Administration) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Councillors) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Commons) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Lords) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act (Postponement of Tax Pending a Review or Appeal) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act (Record Keeping) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of consideration of the second supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19422, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am very pleased to open today’s debate on the general principles of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. This Parliament has a long and proud record of championing nature, biodiversity and wildlife. I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its comprehensive scrutiny of the bill, and everyone who gave evidence at stage 1. I also acknowledge the stakeholders whom we met in Government during the development of the bill, whose contributions have helped to shape our approach.

I welcome the committee’s recommendation that Parliament supports the general principles of the bill. Although I look forward to hearing members’ views on how the bill can be improved and strengthened at stage 2, I hope that we can reaffirm that commitment today by supporting the general principles of the bill and recognising the urgency of the crisis that it seeks to address.

Let me begin with a stark statistic. I invite everyone to think about what this really means. Last year, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that more than 55 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product is dependent on nature—that means that more than half the world’s economic activity relies on healthy ecosystems.

People often talk about how lucky we are to live in Scotland, and of course they are absolutely right—just look at our magnificent landscapes and coastlines, our lochs, glens and forests, and our iconic species such as the golden eagle and the Scottish wildcat. Beneath that beauty, however, lies a troubling truth: biodiversity is in crisis, both globally and at home.

Across the world, 1 million species face extinction in the coming decades unless we act now. That is not just a distant issue happening elsewhere. It is happening on our doorstep, with one in nine species already threatened here in Scotland. Since 1994, monitored species have seen an average 15 per cent drop in numbers. There is no doubt that nature is at risk, and that threatens lives, habitats, the balance of our natural world and the sectors, communities and economies that rely on it.

The nature and climate emergencies are deeply intertwined. Nature regulates our climate, and the climate impacts on nature. The natural environment brings huge benefits to our human health and wellbeing—for example, cleaning our air and water, storing harmful carbon, and reducing flooding. The World Economic Forum recently ranked biodiversity loss as the second-highest global risk over the next decade, just behind extreme weather.

We cannot afford to treat nature as an optional extra. It is the foundation of our health, our economy and our life-support systems. Every part of our natural environment plays a role in supporting the systems that we depend on, from the tiniest microbes to apex predators. That intricate web of life underpins the industries that sustain us, providing food, clean water, energy, shelter and even medicines. Protecting and restoring nature is not just about conservation; it is about doing what is right for the good of us all.

Scotland’s natural environment is part of who we are. It sustains our communities, defines our place in the world and makes our communities resilient. By safeguarding it, we honour our responsibility to future generations and preserve the landscapes and the wildlife that make Scotland thrive. At the same time, we are securing the foundations of our economy and wellbeing, including sectors such as farming, fishing and forestry, which are deeply dependent on the health of our ecosystems. In Scotland, natural capital supports £40.1 billion in economic output and more than 260,000 jobs, from tourism and recreation to food and drink. We know that many sectors depend directly on nature.

Nature is not just an economic asset; it is a public health necessity, with access to nature improving mental and physical wellbeing. For example, studies show that children in deprived areas who spend just 60 minutes a day in nature have a 50 per cent lower risk of mental health issues than others. We now know just enough about biodiversity to understand that removing even small pieces of the puzzle can have unpredictable and cascading effects.

Turning to the legislation, I want to be clear that the bill is not a stand-alone measure. It builds on the biodiversity strategy that we published last year, which sets out a long-term vision to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and restore nature by 2045.

That strategy is supported by six-yearly rolling delivery plans, including our commitment to protect 30 per cent of Scotland’s land and seas for nature by 2030, with the first suite of nature 30 sites already announced. It also includes expanding and enhancing nature networks, in partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders, to deliver ecological, social and economic benefits, and supporting restoration through our £65 million nature restoration fund, which has funded nearly 800 projects since 2021. Those are transformative actions, but we need the legislative tools to match our ambition.

The bill is the next critical step. It places a duty on ministers to set statutory nature restoration targets; it modernises the aims and powers of national park authorities; it reforms deer management; and it creates a bespoke power to update environmental impact assessments and habitats legislation, addressing a gap that was left by our exit from the European Union.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, during the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, stakeholders expressed concern about part 4, which provides more powers to NatureScot, given the potential conflict of interest that might arise in that regard. Does she understand that there is growing concern that NatureScot is often subject to conflicts of interest, given its role as an authority that looks after species numbers and its role as one that gives out licences to control species numbers? Can we consider that as the bill develops?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The bill is not designed to define the role of NatureScot, but I am happy to take on any considerations or feedback from any member who has specific issues around conflicts of interest. If the member has specific examples of what he means by conflicts of interest, he is most welcome to write to me with them.

We will, no doubt, get into the detail of the committee’s report and its recommendations as we debate the bill today, but there is one part in particular that I would like to address now. Although it is generally supportive of the approach in parts 1, 3 and 4 of the bill, I recognise that the committee raised issues about the extent of the delegated power taken in part 2 and the concerns that were raised by environmental non-governmental organisations that the power could be used to dilute environmental protection.

Let me be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government is unequivocally committed to protecting our environment, and the bill has not been designed to dilute environmental protection.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will finish this point and then take the member’s intervention.

Part 2 is designed to address a legislative gap that was left by EU exit and to complement existing but limited powers. Without that bespoke power, vital regimes such as the habitats regulations risk becoming static and outdated. That said, I have heard the concerns and I am listening. My officials and I have been engaging with stakeholders, and I am committed to bringing forward stage 2 amendments to strengthen the safeguards around the future use of the power.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

That is a very useful update from the cabinet secretary, because it concerns a key issue. Many organisations are deeply worried about the possibility that we could inadvertently reduce our environmental standards and impact on nature safety. We look forward to seeing those amendments, because we are all looking at potential amendments to address that problem.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The reason why I wanted to finish the point before I took Sarah Boyack’s intervention was because I wanted to stress that I am listening and am thinking of lodging my own amendments in relation to the issue. However, as Sarah Boyack knows, I am also keen to talk to members about how the bill can be strengthened.

The point was made that we cannot rely on the current Government or flavour of Administration. We need to make sure that, in the event of political decisions being made for this country by people in Government who do not share our views on nature protection, we protect nature against any future Government’s overturning of protection for nature.

I am keen to hear members’ views in this debate on how part 2 can be improved and ensure that the Parliament is sending a strong and united message to everyone that we are in support of the bill. It represents the next step in our journey to become nature positive by 2030 and to restore and regenerate biodiversity by 2045. It is ambitious and necessary, but it is only one part of the wider effort that we must make across Government, sectors and society.

I want to deliver an effective bill. I am listening to proposals that will strengthen it, and I am committed to working with stakeholders and members across the chamber to ensure that it delivers the change that our natural environment urgently needs.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I remind members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

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.

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. 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.

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.

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 of the bill on the management of national parks, the committee heard general support among most stakeholders for the bill’s proposals. However, there were some concerns about the revised aims for national parks and that they would not go far enough in addressing: 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 of the bill relating 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. 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.

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. 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 therefore hope that the Government engages constructively with our reports findings as the bill progresses to ensure that it is capable of delivering on that worthy aim.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I have a small farm up in Moray.

After an eventful week with the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, it is a welcome change to discuss the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill today. Before I set out my reservations about it, I emphasise that my concerns are not about the broad principle of enhancing and protecting our natural environment. I truly accept the importance of that, and I recognise and congratulate the many farmers, crofters and landowners who, through agri-environmental schemes, have been taking forward that approach for years. I am concerned about whether the bill is needed now, the way in which it is being introduced in respect of the rural sector, traditional values and food production, and its impact on local communities.

In an attempt to deal with the sections of the bill in order, I will start with biodiversity targets. By way of history, Scotland’s first biodiversity strategy—“Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s In Your Hands”—was published by a Labour Government in 2004 and has been supplemented and revisited several times. Its original 2010 targets failed to be met. In 2013, the Scottish National Party Government produced the “2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity”. The SNP managed to meet nine of the 20 targets in that but failed to meet the rest.

The SNP then produced the “Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Post-2020: A Statement of Intent”, which paved the way for the 2045 strategy, which was released in draft in 2022 and finally published in November 2024. To be honest, I had slightly lost the will to read any more about biodiversity strategies by that point.

Interestingly, the SNP website says that the SNP understands

“the need to take decisive action to conserve our precious and valuable marine environment and biodiversity.”

My word—if biodiversity is anything to go by, it is no wonder that independence is dead in the water.

Here in 2025—21 years of left-wing ideological Governments later—we are still debating the same old ground and are only now introducing statutory targets in a bill to hold ministers to account. That is not because farmers, landowners and NGOs, or anyone else, were not ready and willing; it is because the previous non-statutory approach undertaken by the Government has been a failure.

Targets will be only as good as the actions to deliver them, says one environmental non-governmental organisation. Where are the assurances that we need on that?

However, rural communities stand ready. For years, land managers, farmers, crofters, estate owners and local communities, in Scotland’s uplands and lowlands alike, have been willing to engage, support biodiversity objectives and integrate nature-friendly practices, while safeguarding food production, local economies and traditional rural values.

Part 2 of the bill was widely panned by those who came before the committee. The risk is that the extensive powers that are proposed in relation to environmental impact assessment regimes and habitat regulations, among other things, could lead to radical changes to protected sites. In their response to the stage 1 report, ministers say that they still wish to press ahead with part 2. I am not against that, but I fear that they may face an uphill battle in securing the trust of rural communities.

Part 3 of the bill looks to change the priorities for national parks and to impose a duty on public bodies

“to facilitate the implementation of National Park Plans”.

That is despite the fact that existing national parks in Scotland have never been comprehensively reviewed, and local people have raised various concerns regarding governance, economic impacts, land use and community rights.

I turn to part 4, on deer management. As drafted, it gives NatureScot extremely broad powers to intervene in how deer are managed, often on vague or undefined grounds. I believe that significant amendment will be needed to bring clarity and proportionality to those powers.

It is vital that NatureScot considers deer numbers and density in relation to their actual impact on the natural environment and avoids unnecessary interference with responsible land management. It will be vital to ensure that the grounds in the bill for any such intervention are tightened further.

The bill as drafted allows action wherever deer “prevent or reduce” environmental work. That strikes me as being too broad. The same applies to the broad scope that allows intervention based on Government targets, strategies and plans, when it should be clearly stated that intervention should relate to deer management.

The code of practice on deer management is a vital document for ensuring that ministers, NatureScot and land managers work together proactively. That should ideally have been produced and debated during stage 1, but I can at least recognise that allowing NatureScot to only have regard to the code is too weak. Surely, if a code aims to bring people together, NatureScot must have to comply with it, so far as is reasonably practicable, so that its decisions are transparent and consistent.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Some of the challenge in deer management comes from the differences between Highland and lowland deer management. My understanding is that the code of practice could be developed only if it allowed flexibility for different practices to be enabled in Highland and lowland deer management processes.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I agree with that. There is a big difference between upland and lowland deer management, and it is essential that the code of practice recognises that and takes it forward. Ideally, though, we could have had that document earlier. It is a bit like what we had with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill.

Several improvements could be made with regard to deer control schemes, amendments on which I will likely bring forward at stage 2.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I ask the member whether the urgency to have all that delivered before the stage 1 debate, when we still have stages 2 and 3 to go, is a bigger imperative for him than getting the bill right.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is not—I accept that. It is not about not getting it right; it is about having all the information at hand early on, so that we can be sure that we are having the right debates and discussions as early in the bill process as possible. The same goes for the rural support plan, which—FYI—we are still waiting for.

The stage 1 report warned that the Government risks eroding trust in the deer management sector. I urge the Government to work to protect that.

I will quickly highlight the letter that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity sent this morning to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, on grouse moor licensing schemes, which were agreed only recently under the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. The argument is that they are not working as intended. My understanding is that there is absolutely no evidence to support that at this point, and amendments such as those proposed risk potentially further broadening what is already a very broad bill and will require significant debate at stage 2. Although I recognise the minister’s right to do that, I hope that he is prepared to facilitate as much consultation and discussion as he can on that issue.

Although the Scottish Conservatives will support the principles of the bill today, we have some reservations about how it might progress. Our concern is that, without proper partnership, and respect for rural livelihoods and food security, the bill risks being a source of tension rather than collaboration.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour and to give my support for the principles of the bill, but I also highlight that the gaps in the bill need to be understood and addressed. As we face the twin nature and climate crises, the bill represents an important step towards restoring Scotland’s natural environment and protecting it for generations to come. I thank the committee, the clerks, all those who gave evidence to the committee in advance of its making recommendations and the range of organisations that issued briefings on how we could strengthen the bill.

To start off, I think that the introduction of statutory nature recovery targets is a vital move, and it is one that I strongly support. That is because targets, when meaningful and properly implemented, can deliver action, focus investment and give clarity to communities. It is significant that three quarters of the Scottish public support legal targets for nature recovery. As RSPB Scotland said in its briefing,

“one in nine species ... are at risk of national extinction”

in Scotland, and we are

“one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world”.

If we are serious about halting biodiversity loss and reversing the damage that is being done to our land, coast and seas, we need clear, ambitious and measurable goals, because the decline in nature is on-going. We have had voluntary targets since the 1990s, so we need change.

Although I support the bill’s overarching ambition and many of the measures that are proposed, there are areas that need to be strengthened if we are to see tangible progress. We cannot afford slow implementation. The urgency of the nature crisis demands evidence-based policy intervention and clarity from the Government for our communities now.

I am proud to have been the minister to introduce our first national parks, and I know at first hand the importance of strong frameworks that empower local leadership while maintaining national consistency. I saw the transformative potential of local engagement in managing and restoring wildlife.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Yes, if it is brief.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does Sarah Boyack agree that we need to define what a national park looks like so that we can have a meaningful consultation with communities?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Defining boundaries is important, but it is also about giving national parks support so that they can fulfil their full potential to lead on nature recovery, sustainable development and community empowerment. Work needs to be done. I believe that ministers should publish a national parks policy framework, setting out a clear vision for how Scotland’s national parks can contribute to nature recovery targets and climate commitments. That should also include guidance for public bodies and officials on how to fulfil the new duty in the bill to seek to further national park aims.

We should ensure that enforcement is not the first response to minor byelaw infringements. We should emphasise education, community engagement and practical support, because our national parks are hugely important to the public. With the right vision and accountability, they can become leading examples of nature restoration, climate resilience, sustainable tourism and food production in action.

I stress that our approach to the nature targets must not overlook species. Achieving the goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030 will need meaningful dialogue with our rural and island communities, because there are residents in the Highlands and Islands specifically who feel both that their land should be protected and that it should be their land. We have been debating that issue this week.

Scottish Labour is keen to propose amendments at stage 2. I am keen to amend the provisions on marine and coastal habitats, because those ecosystems are critical for our biodiversity and climate mitigation, but their ability to sequester carbon and build resilience depends on reducing the pressures that are caused by our activities. Our legislative approach must reflect the need for adaptation as well as mitigation, recognising that nature and climate policies are deeply intertwined.

I thought that it was interesting that, in her opening comments, the cabinet secretary reflected on part 2 of the bill, because it grants ministers sweeping enabling powers to amend the two cornerstone pillars of environmental protection—the habitats regulations and the environmental impact assessment legislation. The EIA regime covers numerous sectors, including agriculture, forestry, marine licensing, planning and flood management. It is concerning that, if we do not maintain the same standards, we could see them undermined. Stakeholders across the environmental and planning sectors have expressed deep unease about the breadth of those powers. Without robust safeguards, there is a real risk of regression in environmental standards, which we cannot allow.

I have been looking at the issue of having a non-regression clause to guarantee that existing protections will not be weakened, because the urgency of our nature crisis leaves no room for going backwards. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary is reflecting on the risks that have been raised by stakeholders and the committee, but we must ensure that the powers in part 2 of the bill will build public trust and not undermine accountability and decision making.

Through the bill, Scotland has the opportunity to show leadership, not only in setting nature recovery targets but in delivering them and demonstrating how democratic, inclusive policy making can result in good outcomes for people and our planet. In the past decade alone, 43 per cent of Scotland’s species have declined. This is a now issue, and the bill must deliver on its promise to set us firmly on a path to restore Scotland’s natural environment, protect our iconic landscapes and species, and empower communities to be at the heart of nature recovery.

With the right amendments providing stronger powers, the bill can help us to move from ambition to action, and I look forward to working constructively to ensure that it does that.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At long last, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill has been introduced in the Parliament, and not a moment too soon, because we are deeper than ever in the nature emergency. We all know that Scotland’s nature is in crisis and that one in nine of Scotland’s species is at risk of extinction. Conservation of what we have left is important, but we need to move beyond drawing lines on maps. Now is the time for the biggest restoration of our land and seas in our nation’s history.

I am excited about what restoration means for species and habitats that will be able to connect, expand and thrive. I am also excited for people—especially a generation of young people—who deserve the opportunity to make their mark on our nation’s story, to help to restore and revive our land and seas, to plant and nurture the future and to shift Scotland’s environmental baselines up instead of down.

This is the moment to ensure that action for nature is given parity with the drive to achieve net zero. They are two sides of the same coin. That need for action should be reflected in the bill’s title. Arguably, it should be a nature emergency bill that is rooted in action and restoration, not only in conservation.

Green members are glad to see legally binding targets for nature recovery being introduced, which is what the Greens pushed for when we were in government. At the committee, we heard many supportive arguments for targets from academics, NGOs and the land management and infrastructure sectors. It is clear that a rudderless, voluntary approach has not worked—it has not brought the focus that is needed in a nature emergency.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If there is time in hand, I will.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is a brief amount of time in hand.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will make a point on the biodiversity targets. Do you agree with Open Seas when it said in its response to the bill that targets are worth while only if the actions behind them are truly achievable?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Always speak through the chair.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Absolutely. That is exactly what my colleague Lorna Slater, when she was in government, was working on through the biodiversity strategy and the delivery plans, which are still to come through.

Targets are not a silver bullet. Multiyear finance is critical, as are those delivery plans, which need to flow from the targets that are being set in the bill. Although Scottish Greens want the target provisions in the bill, we think that they can and should go further. The targets need to recommit to our international obligations to restore 30 per cent of our seas and land by 2030.

There could not be more of a contrast between what is in part 1 of the bill and what is in part 2. As currently drafted, part 2 is wholly inappropriate for legislation that aims to tackle the nature emergency. How can the Government give it and all future Governments the power to water down European laws that have protected our nature from destruction for more than 40 years? The Government has said that it is committed to not using the part 2 powers in the short term, so why introduce such wide-ranging powers in the first place?

We know that there are sectors—from fish farming to agriculture to property development—that would love to strip away nature protections and gut environmental assessments. That is exactly what the United Kingdom Labour Government has enthusiastically started to do in England through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It must not happen here.

Witness after witness who came to the committee talked about how such laws are fundamental and vital to nature protection. There were huge concerns about the use of such powers to rewrite laws, especially given that there is no non-regression clause to act as a backstop against environmental destruction.

It was hard to find any evidence on how a weakened environmental assessment regime would speed up climate action on renewable energy. The current regime is clear and well understood by the sector and, as the case of Berwick Bank offshore wind farm shows, the Government already has more than enough latitude through consenting regimes to make choices. The Government simply has not come to the Parliament with any convincing reasons for why the new powers are needed.

It is time to hold on to our foundational nature protection laws. That is why the Greens are minded to try to remove part 2 of the bill when it returns to the committee—although I would welcome discussion with the cabinet secretary about how part 2 could be amended.

On part 3, which is on national parks, we support the bill’s intentions, especially the clearer focus that is needed from all public agencies to deliver democratically agreed park plans. If Scottish Enterprise had respected the park plan of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park early doors, we might not have had the debacle over Flamingo Land.

It is a massive missed opportunity that all the benefits of national parks will now not be felt in Galloway. We need a review of national parks, which should cover the designation process, what they have achieved in the past 20 years and their current boundaries. It is clear that the Parliament should have a key role in that review.

On part 4, which concerns deer management, we are supportive of the Government’s intentions to finally implement the conclusions of the deer management working group. However, there is more that can and should be done. Deer overgrazing puts a huge limit on nature recovery and climate action. If we want to see thriving Atlantic rainforests, restored peatlands and better deer welfare, we need a modern system of deer management. Enhancing NatureScot’s powers further, so that it can act quickly when deer numbers get out of control, is critical, and it needs to use its new powers. There also need to be options to consider the roles of other public bodies, such as Forestry and Land Scotland, that could step into that role, should NatureScot fail.

The Scottish Greens will support the bill at stage 1, but the legislation must be fit for tackling the nature emergency. We will be looking for a wide range of changes and additions at stage 2. I look forward to working with the Government to address concerns and to make the bill fit for purpose.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee clerks and all the witnesses and stakeholders who contributed to the stage 1 process.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that more needs to be done to halt and reverse the decline of many of Scotland’s important species. We recognise that the climate crisis and biodiversity loss are not separate issues but are deeply intertwined. The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill presents an opportunity for action—a chance to create legally binding targets for nature recovery, to modernise the regulatory framework for deer management and to restore ecosystems. For those reasons, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1.

However, there are several areas that could benefit from changes. My party and I are in broad agreement with the use of legally binding targets for improving biodiversity, although we should be wary of any unintended consequences. As the stage 1 report highlights, targets must be evidence based with robust data, and, as stakeholders have highlighted, the lack of explicit links to the marine environment is noticeable.

Although the bill requires the Scottish ministers to specify how progress towards targets is to be measured, further detail is needed on how they will ensure that targets are robust and that there is sufficient resource available. Targets are useful only when meaningful action is taken to deliver them.

Almost half of Scotland’s species have decreased in number since the 1970s. One in nine species in Scotland is at risk of national extinction—that is a sobering statistic. Invasive non-native species are one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss in Scotland, and the bill provides a chance to legislate for action to address that issue.

Non-native game birds, bred in captivity and released in large numbers, can cause damage to sensitive habitats and have been subject to several mass-mortality events that have been caused by highly pathogenic avian influenza—HPAI—in recent years. That poses serious risks to native wildlife. There has been an increase in releases of novel non-native species to sensitive island ecosystems, including in Shetland, where the impact of HPAI on wild birds is more serious than it is almost anywhere else in Europe. I understand that game birds released in Shetland might not even have been registered on the Scottish kept bird register, despite that being a legal requirement. Given that situation, I ask the cabinet secretary to consider the call for the Scottish ministers to have stronger powers to regulate the release of game birds. In addition, those who plant or manage woodland should take steps to reduce and mitigate the spread of non-native tree species.

The committee heard strong concerns from many stakeholders about part 2 of the bill. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of the environmental impact assessment legislation and the habitats regulations in protecting Scotland’s natural environment and biodiversity. I share their concern that the bill would provide very wide scope for those regimes to be amended by the Scottish ministers. Although our current Government may state that it has no intention of diluting or weakening environmental standards and protections, it cannot speak for future Governments. The law needs better safeguards, such as a non-regression provision, and there should be stronger parliamentary scrutiny. I note the call that some stakeholders made for part 2 to be removed entirely from the bill, and I look forward to seeing what the cabinet secretary brings forward at stage 2 to address those concerns.

I turn to the section on deer management. The intention to modernise the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 is welcome. In some areas, increasing deer numbers and damaged habitats prevent nature restoration. The bill’s success will depend on working with those who undertake deer management, which is largely a voluntary process. Voluntary deer management is vital, and it is important that, when changes are introduced, the trust and consensus that have been built up in the sector are not affected.

To that end, it is important that we consider the concerns that the sector has raised. Deer management organisations have highlighted the lack of detail on how the new nature restoration grounds for intervention will be used in practice. The criteria are to be detailed in the deer code, but that is not due to happen until after the bill completes the parliamentary process. I echo the calls for the draft revised deer code to be ready for consultation as soon as possible, to enable stakeholders and parliamentarians to have sight of the proposals during the bill process.

Mandatory training requirements will have an impact on deer management practitioners and training providers. The Scottish Government must ensure that the training requirements are proportionate and that support is put in place for transition. That should include consideration of grandfather rights and other mechanisms, to avoid a loss of specialist skills and expertise in the sector.

On the repeal of the venison dealer licence, I reiterate the committee’s call for the current system to be maintained until the NatureScot app has been fully tested and rolled out, and for opportunities for expanding the wild venison sector to be explored.

Although the bill presents opportunities for action on climate and nature, improvements are needed, and I look forward to working constructively with the Scottish Government to that end.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

We should recognise at the outset that the bill before us today is the product of extensive and patient engagement by the cabinet secretary and her bill team, as well as work by the committee and its clerks.

The bill will support the on-going work of the Scottish Government and many other stakeholders across Scotland in tackling the twin crises of climate change and nature loss, which are issues that I am acutely aware of, as the nature champion for the great yellow bumblebee, and for many other reasons. Provisions in the bill aim to support the work that is already being undertaken by land managers, farmers, crofters, nature agencies, charities and the other stewards of our land to restore and protect the natural environment on which everyone in Scotland depends.

Other members have spoken, and will speak, about the first three parts of the bill, which cover targets for improving biodiversity, the environmental impact assessment legislation and the habitat regulations, and national parks. The provisions on those matters are all very positive measures, but I intend to concentrate my remarks on part 4 of the bill.

Part 4 is of particular interest to many of my constituents, as it relates to deer management. It includes provisions for controlling deer populations and addressing deer-related damage, along with measures to prevent harm and to enforce existing regulations. Specifically, the bill allows NatureScot to intervene in situations in which insufficient deer management is impeding projects or natural processes that serve to improve or restore the natural environment.

Another change to deer legislation is the removal of the need for a licence to deal in venison to stimulate the small-scale local venison market and make local venison more affordable and accessible. Scotland should certainly be promoting the wider sale of venison, given its quality and availability.

Excessive deer numbers often represent a significant threat to the livelihoods of tenant farmers and crofters through damage to crops, grazings, woodlands and habitats. Deer can also host ticks, which can carry a range of diseases that can infect humans and livestock.

Between them, tenant farmers and crofters manage about 35 per cent of Scotland’s agricultural land, including common grazings. Crofters and tenant farmers often live and work in areas of concentrated land ownership and, in some cases, have landlords with sporting interests. There can be tension between estates that want to keep shooting rights and tenants who have to deal with the damage that deer can cause if they are not controlled. I suspect that that will be a live issue as the bill progresses through the Parliament.

Under current legislation, occupiers of land, including tenant farmers and tenant crofters, have the right to cull deer only on improved land where deer damage occurs—not on unimproved land such as moorland, sea cliffs and hill grazings, which is the primary natural habitat for deer. In its final report, the deer working group therefore recommended that the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 should be amended so that the statutory rights of occupiers to prevent damage by wild deer apply to any type of land.

Although I suspect that we will return to discuss that specific issue, I believe that the bill is a positive step for Scotland’s biodiversity, environment and rural communities, and I commend all sections of the bill to the Parliament.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The bill that is before us today is essentially the four-in-one result of several consultations that have been held from 2023 onwards. The broader issue of protecting and enhancing our natural environment finds some agreement around the Parliament, but it is clear that, since its initial publication, the bill has raised serious questions among stakeholders.

To turn to part 1, we welcome the focus on biodiversity, but, as the Scottish Government alludes to in its policy memorandum, we have had 21 years of strategy but little general improvement in Scotland’s biodiversity. Scotland’s capacity for action on restoring and improving biodiversity is perhaps greater than that of any other part of the United Kingdom, yet, in many ways, we have been left behind on the issue. However, we are not simply calling for pushing on. An effective and sustainable approach on biodiversity will need a Government that is realistic about the balance to be struck on its many competing objectives.

To take one example, the Scottish Government has recognised that Scotland is in a housing crisis. In my region, many people, particularly young people, find themselves priced out of housing. Despite that, the Government seems to be unable to do anything meaningful to put house building on track to address the shortage of supply. Regulation and additional costs have strangled a great deal of potential development that is not only positive but necessary. We do not want biodiversity requirements to become a hurdle or barrier to delivering desperately needed homes, and we cannot load yet more regulation on top of those objectives. We have seen how many metrics of biodiversity net gain have been utilised elsewhere, and the prospect of off-site delivery for developers can help to balance the competing needs of development and of enhancing the natural environment.

Equally, we must consider the balance with food production and agriculture. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business. As Tim Eagle hinted at, many farms have made great strides with biodiversity in recent years, but we have too often been left to proceed alone because of a lack of advice or co-operation from the Scottish Government. I recognise that significant biodiversity gains can be found in agriculture, but the approach simply cannot be another Government-directed mandate against struggling farmers.

Part 3 of the bill, which is about the management of national parks, gives a significant amount of focus to the use of fixed-penalty notices in order to enforce national park byelaws. Byelaws have not been used extensively by the national park authorities in the past, but they can be a useful tool in ensuring that those areas are used responsibly. We should perhaps not go too far in seeing that as a solution. The powers are already there to refer offences to the procurator fiscal and for fiscal fines to be issued to offenders after the event, alongside other potential disposals.

Although park rangers can issue FPNs under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, those powers are not regularly used, but, given those established powers and park rangers’ experience of issuing FPNs for other matters, mainly fly tipping and littering, the ability to enforce byelaws in that way would remove an anomaly in enforcement powers. That should lead to a wider question about enforcement and about what more could be done to ensure that those who use national parks do so in a way that is appropriate. We should be asking what resources are required to police those parks, protect their natural heritage and ensure that antisocial behaviour is constrained.

We are all aware that offences in national parks and other rural areas are going unpunished. Too often, a minority of people are causing significant problems, including starting dangerous fires that threaten to cause wildfires, undertaking damaging camping practices and causing issues with camper vans, particularly with waste disposal. I hear directly how those issues can have a huge impact in communities across the Highlands and Islands, so national park authorities, local authorities and the police will have to work closely to combat those.

Although the bill would enhance the legal powers that are available, it will be for the Scottish Government to ensure that those new powers are part of a package of measures that recognise the scale and extent of crime in national park settings and that appropriately resource efforts to tackle that.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will not, I am afraid.

Turning to part 4 of the bill, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has recognised that the current approach to deer management is not working, although the same could be said of the management of many other species that will not be given the same focus. There are continuing issues with greylag geese, hooded crows, great black-backed gulls and a range of damaging species for which management has visibly failed, meaning that livestock, crops and farmers pay the price.

Culling at scale is a necessary step and the bill recognises and addresses issues of biodiversity, but serious inroads on deer management are needed as part of that process. NatureScot believes that at least another 50,000 deer must be culled annually to meet biodiversity targets and, although that figure is widely disputed by many, achieving one is entirely unrealistic without the other. More than that, the impact of poor deer management is greater than the impact on biodiversity and on habitats. The effects on agriculture and the rising number of ticks that spread disease to animals and humans should concern us all.

I appreciate that a great deal of the impact will go beyond legislation, but landowners and those who are involved in land management are already pointing out that there is little clarity in the bill about how the new system will operate. Not least among those concerns are the calls for openness about the proposed new code of practice, in order to enable effective scrutiny. The Scottish Government should be worried when organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation are highlighting the potential for measures in the bill to reduce by half the number of deer stalkers as a result of more regulatory burdens being placed on their activities. Despite discussions held by the deer working group, it seems clear that there is a real need to build more effective relationships between the Scottish Government, NatureScot and stakeholders on the ground.

There are reasonable intentions behind bringing together several areas in one bill, but this bill fails to live up to what it suggests or to make a real impact on preserving and enhancing our natural environment. Some of its provisions are welcome, but it is clear that, should it pass stage 1 today, it will be up to the Scottish Government to ensure that those are successfully implemented. There is a risk that the bill will create biodiversity targets that do not work and that, instead, harm the Government’s other objectives. There could be new enforcement powers for national parks without offences being enforced and a new approach to deer management that leads to, or risks leading to, chaos in the sector. It is possible to avoid those outcomes, but that will require a level of commitment and engagement that the Scottish Government has, I am sad to say, not demonstrated so far.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I advise members that we have a bit of time in hand and that time taken by any interventions will be given back.

I call Emma Harper to speak for a generous six minutes.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Thank you for being generous, Presiding Officer.

As a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on our stage 1 report on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I thank the committee clerks, all the witnesses who contributed by giving us evidence and, of course, the bill team and Government ministers. This legislation presents a vital opportunity to address the nature emergency and biodiversity loss in Scotland through statutory targets, improved deer management and the reform of our national park system.

I will begin with the issue of biodiversity and habitat targets. Scotland’s biodiversity is in decline, as we have already heard this afternoon, and wading birds such as curlews, lapwings and oystercatchers are emblematic of that crisis. Their wetland, moorland and grassland habitats are under huge pressure from land use change, climate impacts and predation. That is why many species are already red listed.

Since February, I have worked with a local farmer in the Glenkens area, and with other concerned stakeholders, to seek and to deliver ways of addressing the reduction in those iconic birds, and we now have a good network of people who wish to be included in action that is taken forward.

I have been the nature champion for the natterjack toad for almost 10 years now, and I am the small ponds and lochs champion, too. As part of being a nature champion, I have witnessed for myself the vulnerabilities of our habitats in my South Scotland region.

The committee’s report is clear that voluntary approaches have not delivered. Our report states:

“The Committee agrees that the rate of nature loss in Scotland over recent decades ... is deeply concerning. The voluntary approach to biodiversity targets taken to date has not managed to halt or reverse biodiversity declines.”

I therefore support the introduction of statutory targets, but they must be more than aspirational. They must be actionable, measurable and backed by resources. Our committee report notes that

“targets in themselves are not a ‘silver bullet’”—

the convener mentioned that, too—and it adds that,

“whether statutory or not ... they must be accompanied by meaningful actions, and reinforced by sufficient public resources, in order to ensure they are achievable.”

The bill sets out three mandatory target areas under proposed new section 2C of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. They are

“the condition or extent of any habitat ... the status of threatened species”—

there has already been discussion about that language this afternoon—and

“the environmental conditions for nature regeneration”.

That is a strong foundation.

Our report highlights that

“Scottish Ministers may also set targets in relation to ‘any other matter relating to the restoration or regeneration of biodiversity as they consider appropriate’.”

It may be an action for the Scottish Government to include species-specific indicators, which could include breeding success rates for wading birds. That could ensure that our targets reflect ecological realities and guide effective interventions, although any action must not be applied in a siloed way.

My next point is about part 4 of the bill, on deer management. Others have mentioned that already, but I believe that it is an important topic to highlight, particularly in relation to lowland areas. Scotland’s deer population, although iconic, is increasingly problematic. In lowland and peri-urban areas, deer are contributing to habitat degradation and agricultural damage; they are even a cause for road safety concerns. Alasdair Allan mentioned Scotland’s tenant farmers, and I have been working alongside them to highlight the impacts of deer encroaching into their unimproved land and their property.

The committee heard that the current powers are insufficient to address those challenges. The bill seeks to introduce a new nature restoration criterion under proposed new section 6ZB of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, which would allow NatureScot to intervene where deer are impeding biodiversity recovery. That is a welcome step.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Emma Harper may have heard my intervention on the cabinet secretary regarding the concerns that were raised with the committee about the extension of the role of NatureScot under part 4 of the bill. In response, the cabinet secretary rightly said that the bill is not about NatureScot. However, does the member accept that this is perhaps our final legislative opportunity in the current session of Parliament to make some changes to NatureScot, for those of us who have concerns about its conflicted duties whereby it is in charge of preserving bird, deer and animal numbers and also in charge of the licences to control them?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can give you the time back for the intervention, Ms Harper.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Thanks, Presiding Officer.

I thank Douglas Ross for his intervention. If we are looking at potential stage 2 amendments, that might be something that the member can address, in order to clarify what the concerns about NatureScot are. Any member could take that forward if they so choose.

Stakeholders expressed concern about the powers that would be applied. The committee recommends that the criteria for intervention under proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act should be clearly set out in the revised deer code, which should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Transparency and collaboration are key. Deer managers have built trust through voluntary efforts, and we must preserve that relationship. Clear guidance, robust data collection, especially in lowland areas, and inclusive decision making will be essential.

We have heard about the promotion and consumption of venison and combined venison and pork products, which is already under way in some areas, and about good examples of that taking place in primary schools on Jura. I believe that NHS Dumfries and Galloway is also adding venison products to its menus.

,

I will quickly address the process for establishing new national parks. The bill proposes reforms to the aims and governance of national parks. Although I support those changes, in my South Scotland regionthe experience from the Galloway national park proposals, which did not proceed, highlights the need for a more inclusive and transparent process. Strong local feelings for and against the proposal were expressed, and concerns were raised about land use restrictions and governance, and the fact that Dumfries and Galloway is a high food-producing and economically important area in the south-west Scotland region.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I do not think that I have time.

The committee rightly called for clearer guidance on how national park plans will be implemented and how competing aims such as conservation, recreation and economic development will be balanced.

The bill is a turning point. It gives us the tools to restore nature, manage our landscapes responsibly and engage communities in shaping their futures, but we need more than legislation; we also need collaboration, clarity and commitment. I support the principles of the bill, because Scotland’s nature deserves nothing less.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I add my thanks to those who provided evidence to the committee on the bill and to the committee’s support staff, who helped us in our deliberations. Others have been mentioning that they are nature champions, so I need to name-check the wildcat, for which I am the nature champion. I also pay tribute to the work of the Highland wildlife park and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, which have done a huge amount of work on breeding wildcats in captivity and on reintroducing wildcats that have continued to breed in the wild. That is a good-news story, and I hope that we can continue to build on it.

As others have said, the bill has four distinct parts. Part 1—on targets—appears largely uncontroversial, albeit that it will need strengthening at stage 2. However, as others have said, part 2 has caused much greater concern to those who gave evidence. It gives the Scottish ministers unprecedented powers to modify environmental impact assessment legislation and habitats regulations.

Many of those who gave evidence were concerned that the powers were far too broad. Stakeholders argued that ministers already had powers to amend those regimes and that the existing powers work well and give enough flexibility for different features to be protected. They also said that existing powers allow for the alteration of designations for features that can no longer be protected or are no longer there, which is often due to issues outwith our control, such as climate change.

Those who gave evidence believe that the powers create the right balance and provide enough flexibility in any circumstance. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management told the committee that habitat regulations were more flexible than indicated by the Government, albeit that that flexibility was often underused. It gave an example from my constituency of the Mallaig to Fort William road upgrade, where there was a loss of oak wood in a special area of conservation. However, that was allowed because of the public interest in upgrading the road.

Others cited the flexibility that is contained in the Energy Act 2023, which has the power to make changes for renewables and electricity infrastructure. The keeping pace power that this part of the bill seeks to replace is due to expire and could be extended or replaced in a much more constrained fashion.

I am glad that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary, in her speech today, have acknowledged that there are issues with that, and that the cabinet secretary said that she will look at lodging amendments at stage 2. We look forward to seeing those amendments. As others have said, if amendments are not made, we might need to look to remove part 2 of the bill.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The issue about keeping pace is important. Does the member agree that one way to tackle that would be to ensure that the sunset clause in the continuity bill is removed, so that we in this place can continue to update European legislation that protects the environment?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That was one of a number of suggestions given to the committee, which will need to scrutinise the evidence. However, it is clear that something in the bill will have to change to provide that protection. We have an open mind as to how that happens. Our legislation needs to be future proofed and it is right for checks and balances to be in place.

Part 3 of the bill updates the aims of national parks. When Sarah Boyack was Minister for Transport and the Environment, I was on the committee that scrutinised the original national park legislation and, like her, I remember many difficult debates and negotiations that were needed to get the balance right for the aims of national parks. No one has given a substantial reason for the changes in the bill. I feel that, if legislation does not need to be changed for any particular reason, we should leave it as it is, because those aims have borne the test of time. I fear that any change may rebalance the aims and lead to conflict.

When we first introduced national parks, there was a clamour to have them in other areas, but that clamour seems to have disappeared. Indeed, the Government’s attempt to create another national park has failed. Instead of changing the aims, perhaps we should help our national parks to flourish, and look at whether our national parks are meeting our aspirations, with post-legislative scrutiny for example. Perhaps we should look at community aspirations for our existing national parks, which might encourage others to consider developing national parks in their areas.

Part 4 of the bill concerns deer management. If we manage deer properly, the investment that we put into natural forest regeneration may not be required because, if we remove deer pressure, forests will regenerate themselves naturally. However, we must reduce deer numbers. When we do that, animal welfare must be at the heart of it, because it is important that we do it properly and do not waste the venison that is created from the cull of deer. We have heard about initiatives in Jura and other places where venison is making its way into school meals and providing nutrition to our young people. We need to learn from that.

Scottish Labour very much welcomes the bill and will support it. However, we want to work with the Government on lodging amendments that will improve it in future, which I hope we can do at stage 2.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I thank everyone who took the time to give the committee evidence on the bill.

The bill is wide ranging, but I will focus on proposals for a fixed-penalty regime for national park byelaws, which comes under part 3. Many of my constituents live and work in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. It is a marvellous place, which provides many opportunities to engage with the natural world. If any member has not been there, please come. The park has more than 4 million visitors a year, so it is important to consider and manage the impact on those who live locally, as well as on the environment. Byelaws play an important role in that.

The Law Society of Scotland explains that byelaws can be used by national parks

“to protect their natural and cultural heritage, prevent damage to the land and secure public enjoyment and safety.”

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority has had byelaws restricting camping on the banks of many of its lochs since 2017, and safety regulations for water activities at Loch Lomond since 2023.

The Cairngorms national park has introduced byelaws on fire management with a view to reducing the risk of wildfires. Education and engagement are at the fore of byelaw enforcement. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Association explained to the committee that, when its rangers have conversations with visitors who are breaking byelaws, many are happy to adjust their behaviour and do the right thing. However, in 12 out of nearly 900 cases last year, that conversation did not work. Those cases were referred to the procurator fiscal, which is causing a huge administrative burden for the national park. Section 9 addresses that with an enabling power to introduce fixed-penalty notices for the enforcement of national park byelaws, which is considered to be a more efficient, effective and proportionate means of enforcement.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

National park fixed penalties were quite uncontentious at committee, but the changes to habitat regulations in part 2 of the bill were very contentious. Does Evelyn Tweed think that it is telling that neither she nor Emma Harper nor Alasdair Allan mentioned that in the debate? Is that because there is nothing that can come forward that protects the habitat regulations?

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

No, that is absolutely not the case, but I thank Tim Eagle for his intervention.

Although the proposals have been welcomed, several stakeholders have expressed the need for caution. Scottish Environment LINK noted the risk of stricter enforcement within national parks displacing problem behaviour beyond the parks’ boundaries and creating a two-tier system. Many popular locations and important habitats lie beyond our national parks, so that is a concern. I am keen to hear how the Government will mitigate and monitor any unintended consequences that may arise.

I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary describe the fixed-penalty regime as “supplementary” to the rangers’ role of engagement and education, but several organisations asked for guidance and monitoring to ensure that that remains the case. The committee seeks details on what guidance the Scottish Government intends to provide to NPAs as they formulate their approach. The maximum penalty is set at £500, and I note that the financial memorandum states that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs NPA proposed fines of around £80 and deemed that as an “appropriate” level for byelaw fines. However, the Law Society highlighted the need to ensure that there is consistency with other fixed-penalty schemes to ensure that the landscape is simple and does not lead to confusion among the public.

There has been a suggestion that a fixed-penalty regime could cover parking infractions, and I am keen to explore that further. Irresponsible parking in visitor hotspots is a huge issue in my area, and this summer saw serious overcrowding and reckless parking on verges at Loch Lubnaig and other areas. NPAs did not think that they had the key legal rights at present to make byelaws bite. I know that my constituents would welcome more enforcement powers in that area, and I ask the Government to work with the national park authorities on that ahead of stage 2 and to consider the role that local authorities and the police might have in the area.

On the whole, the committee heard support for that change, and I look forward to hearing how issues will be addressed at stage 2.

I support the general principles of the bill. For the record, I am also the nature champion for the rare azure hawker dragonfly.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We come to the final speaker in the open debate. Jackie Dunbar, you have a generous six minutes.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I am afraid that I am not going to need a generous six minutes, Presiding Officer.

I declare that I am the species champion for the sea trout.

One of my party’s favourite phrases is “Stop the world—Scotland wants to get on.” Fifty-eight years after that phrase was first spoken, although support for independence shows a healthy 10-point lead in the polls, the world is not in quite such a great place and is facing both climate and biodiversity crises. The bill is part of how Scotland will respond to those crises and how we will play our part in tackling global challenges across Scotland and in the communities that we represent. Basically, it is about how we think global and act local. Tackling the climate emergency is already a priority of our Scottish Government, but, increasingly, extreme weather is not just about sad polar bears up at the north pole; it is impacting on Scotland. We are seeing it in the likes of storm Arwen and “Hurricane Bawbag”, and we are also seeing it in floods and, for the first time in a very long time, water shortages in our country, where it often feels as though it just never stops raining.

Obviously, all of that is going to have an impact on our natural environment and, in turn, affect biodiversity across Scotland, even before we factor in the impact of what is happening in Scotland itself. Over time, agricultural activity, forestry, grazing—by farm animals and wild animals—peatland degradation, overfishing, invasive species and new building developments, whether for housing or for commercial uses, have all added to the strain that is being placed on our biodiversity. Scotland now ranks 212th out of 240 countries in the biodiversity intactness index, and 11 per cent of species in Scotland are at risk of extinction. That needs to change.

Today, I am pleased that it appears that we are going to come together as a Parliament and unite behind the principles that will enable us to improve the situation, so that we can have an ecosystem that is strong and stable. I am sure that, once we all agree that there should be targets for improving biodiversity, we can go back to fiercely debating exactly what those targets should be and how they should be measured and met.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

There is consensus about the reason for having the bill. However, as my colleague Tim Eagle noted, every stakeholder, without exception, has suggested that part 2 would put nature at risk, yet we have not heard that from any of the Scottish National Party speakers. Can you set out why you think part 2 is needed and whether the safeguards that would be required are in place?