˿

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 31 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 6954 contributions

|

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Joint Fisheries Statement

Meeting date: 6 November 2024

Finlay Carson

In practice, do fishermen or NGOs write to Jane MacPherson and say, “We’ve got an issue with whelks—you need to look at this”? Is there a certain weight of evidence or whatever that triggers such consideration?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Joint Fisheries Statement

Meeting date: 6 November 2024

Finlay Carson

I have a final couple of questions.

Cabinet secretary, can you give us the reasons for commissioning Seafish to undertake the work in connection with the nephrops stocks in the North Sea and the west of Scotland?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Joint Fisheries Statement

Meeting date: 6 November 2024

Finlay Carson

Would that potentially indicate a lack of capacity in the marine directorate?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Joint Fisheries Statement

Meeting date: 6 November 2024

Finlay Carson

Both of you do, of course. [Laughter.] Thank you both for your contribution this morning.

I will briefly pause the meeting to allow for a short comfort break.

10:02 Meeting suspended.  

10:10&Բ;&Բ;ܳԲ—&Բ;&Բ;

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Joint Fisheries Statement

Meeting date: 6 November 2024

Finlay Carson

That was going to be my next question, so I appreciate that point.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Joint Fisheries Statement

Meeting date: 6 November 2024

Finlay Carson

Tim Eagle has a question on cod plans, and this is perhaps an appropriate time to ask it, given those comments.

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 30 October 2024

Finlay Carson

One of my biggest concerns is that we have heard about all the downsides of national parks in Scotland. The Government is committed to delivering at least one new national park in Scotland by the end of 2026, but should it have waited until lessons had been learned from the existing parks? I know that somebody has already touched on this, but should there be a formal independent review of the current national parks to see what lessons could be learned?

In some instances, national park status might deliver benefits to some areas, but we do not know what those might be, because we have not reviewed the work that has already been undertaken on the benefits and drawbacks of national park status.

What are your views on potentially pausing the commitment to new national parks until a thorough review of the existing parks has been done?

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 30 October 2024

Finlay Carson

Thank you.

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 30 October 2024

Finlay Carson

I take issue with some of the sentiments that have been expressed, because they are somewhat conflicting. Mhairi Dawson, you suggested that you do not know what you are deciding on, but someone also said that it is all set in stone and is a “done deal”. There is a lot of uncertainty, but is that not because the formal consultation does not start until next week? That will set out the considerations for the public, which may be about boundaries, the planning authority status of the new national park or the make-up of its board. Are we jumping the gun by saying that NatureScot has failed, when in fact that process is about to be undertaken?

I know that the NFUS says no to national parks, but when it comes to the Galloway national park, what is the NFUS actually saying no to? What policies that are yet to be decided is it saying no to?

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 30 October 2024

Finlay Carson

Well, we can dispute that.

I put it on record that I was a supporter of Galloway park lite. I followed in the footsteps of the late, well-respected former Presiding Officer, Sir Alex Fergusson, who saw the opportunities that a national park-lite process could bring to Galloway, which is seeing depopulation, an ageing population, one of the lowest wage economies in the country and houses being unaffordable, even though the house prices are currently the lowest around.

However, my question is whether we are getting the process right. My support of the national park was somewhat dented by the Greens. The whole process has been tainted by the influence that the Green Party has had and the timetable that it brought in. We already know that, by the very nature of Galloway, any national park there would have to be hugely different to elsewhere. We have a bigger population, intensive agriculture, a population that is dispersed across the region, commercial forestry and renewables. Galloway national park would be quite unlike any of the other existing national parks—not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom. It would therefore have to be fundamentally different.

I have already called for an extension to the consultation, and the cabinet secretary has stated that the process needs to be done properly rather than only to a timetable. I am sure that you gentlemen want a national park to deliver all the things that Galloway needs. The current timetable might lead to only 12 weeks of consultation and a designation sometime before 2026. That is, if we do designate a national park, and designation may not be the solution, as other policy interventions could deliver the benefits without it. Therefore, why are you not suggesting that we do the review of current national parks and ensure that the two processes are run concurrently, so that we could potentially change the priorities of a national park to include more biodiversity and climate change, rather than what it should be about—in my view—which is sustainable economic development? Why can we not have a process that delivers something that Galloway really needs, rather than sticking to a timetable that is far too short?