Dave Thompson MSP

Welcome to Dave Thompson MSP's biography pages

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by Dave Thompson

Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2014 : Thursday, December 18, 2014
Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)

What does the First Minister think of the Supreme Court judgment on the two midwives and their participation in abortion? Where does that leave individual workers’ rights in relation to conscientious objection?



Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 17 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)

I have listened with interest to what Nigel Don, Graeme Dey and Alex Fergusson have said. As Nigel says, equity has to come into any consideration of such a subject. Netting for salmon has been going on for centuries along the Scottish coast. If we are going to deprive people of their livelihood, or part of their livelihood, it is sensible and decent to consider some kind of compensation or buy-out—otherwise, it would be unfair and wrong. I am pretty sure that the Government will listen to that argument. I certainly hope so.

Graeme Dey mentioned a figure of 7,000 fish. If those 7,000 fish are not caught, they all swim up the river. Who benefits from that? It is the people further up the river—riparian owners and others. There is a massive benefit to folk, and that needs to be taken into consideration in the longer term, in the fisheries review and so on. We need to consider issues around wider access to fishing—only 500 fish are being caught with the rod and line but there would be 7,000 going upriver. If we are going to take away somebody’s livelihood and allow the fish to go up the river, meaning that someone else benefits, let us get some public benefit out of it as well.

These are general comments from me, and I am not putting forward details on how the issues should be dealt with. I think that we should be looking at the issues in terms of broad principles.

10:15  

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 10 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Dave Thompson

I have one final follow-up question. Surely the additional provision is in a sense unnecessary, because an application would already have to show that the purchase furthered the achievement of sustainable development. If the owner could show that his evidenced intentions were furthering sustainable development, the community application would not have a leg to stand on anyway. I am not clear about why we need the belt-and-braces approach of having an additional provision, which might well make a purchase impossible for a community, especially if the onus is placed on the community.



Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 10 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Dave Thompson

The cabinet secretary explained the situation, but it seems to me that the wording in the bill is the other way round. It says:

“if the owner of the land were to remain as its owner, that ownership would be inconsistent with furthering the achievement of sustainable development in relation to the land”.

It looks as if the onus will be on the applicant to show that the current ownership would be inconsistent with sustainable development. However, you suggested a moment ago that the owner would need to show that his or her continued ownership would be consistent with that. There is a difference in emphasis that needs to be looked at.



Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 10 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Dave Thompson

I seek just a wee bit of clarification on that point, convener.



Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 10 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Dave Thompson

I appreciate that response, although I think that, once land is on the market, that should be absolute, so people would not have to prove anything.



Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 10 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Dave Thompson

Yes—sorry, convener.

As I understand it, if a community successfully submits a late application for a piece of land that has come on the market and the landlord does not like that, the landlord can withdraw the land from the market, which kills the whole thing. Would it be worth considering including in the bill—or in regulation or whatever—something that would prevent a landlord from withdrawing a piece of land or a building from the market once they had put it on the market, to prevent them from thwarting a community’s wish to buy it? If a community goes for something that comes on the market and the landlord thinks, “No way!” and withdraws it, the sale is dead. Is it worth looking at something to prevent such circumstances, so that once a piece of land or building is on the market, it is on the market and the community has a right to see the process through?

I have one other very tiny point. As I understand it, it is not possible to amend applications at the moment. If an application needs a minor change, the whole process must start again. There needs to be an ability to amend applications as they go through the process. We heard evidence on that last week from Simon Fraser, if I remember correctly.



Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 10 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Dave Thompson

Thank you. I have a couple of other very minor points.



Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 10 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Dave Thompson

That is not really what I am saying. Why should the community need to show that it has done anything prior to the late registration?

11:15  

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 10 December 2014 : Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Dave Thompson

I move on to the way that late registrations are proposed to be dealt with. The good reasons test has been taken out, which is welcome, but under the new test that has been put in the community has to show that such relevant work as ministers consider reasonable has been carried out.

The Holmehill community had lots of difficulty dealing with the current legislation. The piece of land that came up for sale in their area was a lovely piece of what they thought was common land. The community had no intimation whatsoever that there was any chance of that coming on the market, so it had done nothing. The new proposed test means that it would have not even been able to start the process of a late application. Communities are often not going to know or anticipate that certain pieces of land or buildings are going to come on the market. Is that not too tough a test for late registrations?

Vote DetailMSP VoteResult

S4M-11901.3 Neil Findlay: Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce—As an amendment to motion S4M-11901
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11901.1 Mary Scanlon: Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce—As an amendment to motion S4M-11901
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11830.2 John Swinney: The Smith Commission—As an amendment to motion S4M-11830 in the name of Ru
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11830 Ruth Davidson: The Smith Commission—That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Sm
>> Show more
YesCarried

Amendment 6 moved by Dr Richard Simpson on motion S4M-11826 Maureen Watt: Food (Scotland) Bill—That
>> Show more
Not VotedDefeated

S4M-11825.3 Claire Baker: End of Year Fish Negotiations—As an amendment to motion S4M-11825 in the n
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11825.2 Jamie McGrigor: End of Year Fish Negotiations—As an amendment to motion S4M-11825 in the
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11825.1 Tavish Scott: End of Year Fish Negotiations—As an amendment to motion S4M-11825 in the n
>> Show more
NoDefeated

S4M-11825 Richard Lochhead: End of Year Fish Negotiations—That the Parliament welcomes the successfu
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11763.3 Margaret Burgess: Private Sector Rent Reform—As an amendment to motion S4M-11763 in the
>> Show more
YesCarried

Search for other Motions lodged by Dave Thompson
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-11004: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 25/09/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10559: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 08/07/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10123: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 22/05/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10093: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 20/05/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09259: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 06/03/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09077: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 19/02/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09012: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/02/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-09011: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/02/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-08836: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 24/01/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-07209: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, On Behalf of Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, Date Lodged: 01/07/2013 Show Full Motion >>
Search for other Questions asked by Dave Thompson
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Question S4T-00870: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 08/12/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03807: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/12/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03665: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 05/11/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03637: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 27/10/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03591: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 01/10/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03497: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/08/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03433: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 28/07/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03319: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 28/05/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-02128: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 26/05/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03161: Dave Thompson, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 23/04/2014 Show Full Question >>

Further information

Email our Public Information Service for more information.