Michelle Thomson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We cannot lose sight of the human stories behind that—there has been not just uncertainty but financial worry and a loss of confidence in what should be their safest space: their home.”
“Even though section 104 orders are commonplace, like others, I remain unconvinced by the UK Government’s reasoning. It is a sober reminder that power devolved is power retained. I caution those who believe that, should the bill pass, the choice that they hope for will be immediately and seamlessly available.”
“Willie Rennie: I understand some of the changes that have been made, and I welcome some of the ones that have been introduced, but the issue is still incredibly sensitive. We do not yet have the investment that the changes are designed to bring. That is why acting carefully must be the first priority.”
“To that end, I thank the minister for the Government’s acceptance of my amendment 15. First-time buyers already face significant barriers, and it would have been unfair for the levy to have created further obstacles. I am grateful to colleagues and the minister for ensuring that fairness is at the centre of the legislation.”
“On the other side, we are reminded by philosophers such as Marcus Düwell that “in the concept of human dignity questions about the role of humanity, the rights of individuals, and the structure of our normative social and political orders are interconnected.” In essence, we confront a profound fault line between two fundamental considerat…”
“I will start my short remarks by popping in the intervention that I hoped to make on Willie Rennie. I hope that he will join me in my calls for an adjustment to the fiscal framework to remove the ridiculous limits on the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers, because that is a fundamental aspect of being able to improve our infra…”
The complete record
Every one of 425 lines we hold for Michelle Thomson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“I hope that, during the next parliamentary session, we can build a degree of consensus about the need to reform the fiscal framework and, potentially, to simplify it.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. Yesterday, the majority of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s evidence session with the Scottish Fiscal Commission and others dealt with the complexity of the fiscal framework, rather than the budget itself. If I can be cheeky, I will ask two questions. First, does the cabinet secretary have sight of that issue? Secondly, if the people giving evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee have an issue with the complexity of the framework, how on earth can other committees deal with it? Shona Robison: I agree with the general point that Michelle Thomson made. The fiscal framework is incredibly complex and needs to be reformed. That is the ask that we have made of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Thomson. Your vote will be recorded.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what the current status is of its plans to add sex to the characteristics covered by the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. (S6O-05371)”
“The work that we have done to ensure prudent management of finances means that we are able to pass money through into the reserve and can also reduce the use of ScotWind income, which is one of the few flexible resources available to us. Michelle Thomson will also be aware of the limitations of the fiscal framework, which I referred to earlier. That is why I want to negotiate something far more ambitious, which is a subject that I have raised with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on a number of occasions.”
“I welcome the continued investment in the Scottish National Investment Bank as a key enabler of economic growth. The detail in the budget shows that the bank can now reinvest income received. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Treasury rules for that bank are now the same as those for the British Business Bank? Just as important, can she confirm whether the restrictions set by the Scottish Government regarding underspends at the end of any financial year have also been removed? Shona Robison: Michelle Thomson will be well aware of some of the very welcome changes that were made to the fiscal framework that will enable a flow of resources into the next financial year.”
“The issue is not as simple as amortising a liability over several years. In his remarks, the minister did not refer to the letter that was sent yesterday by Homes for Scotland and has been mentioned by another speaker. That letter picks up on the fundamental point that the BRIA valued the new-build housing market at around £4.6 billion. Homes for Scotland thinks that that overstates the value by about £1.4 billion and therefore skews all the figures—I think that someone referred to estimates of estimates. I have a final, brief point about transition planning, about which I think we also need more detail. I will vote for the bill at stage 1, but I am looking forward to the considerable amount of work that is still to be done and I will play my part by lodging amendments at stage 2. 15:46”
“Remedies for Scottish house builders rely entirely on the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, which, although it has been amended, will not provide the same legal remedies as are found elsewhere in the UK, unless this Parliament legislates to amend it further. I wonder whether the minister will, in his closing remarks, give some thought to whether that will be considered. Another concern that I raised during our evidence sessions was in connection with build to rent. I think that the Scottish Property Federation is right to note that the business model often operates on a phased cash-flow basis. A large site that is being developed for build to rent will be charged a one-off levy, whereas new housing estates will appear over several years, thus spreading out the tax.”
“The last thing that we need is an overreliance on those large UK-wide companies because of that. I will further explore the polluter-pays principle. The committee is right to note in its report that the tax cannot be considered to be based on the polluter-pays principle and it is right to ask the Scottish Government to consider “legal options that would enable housebuilders to seek contributions for remediation work from others in the sector.” I was surprised and, I must say, a little disappointed that the minister, in his response to the committee, did not fully address the issue of the Supreme Court interpreting English legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Defective Premises Act 1972, neither of which applies in Scotland.”
“I fully support the committee’s recommendation for a sensitivity analysis that can examine that and I seek guidance, in common with the convener, about whether that will be carried out by the Government. There have been ample warnings that the additional cost of the tax could be passed on to purchasers. To be honest, it is slightly naive to consider that house builders will manage their margins by simply offering less for land. That is possible in some areas where the demand for land is low, but where the demand is high, it is just not likely. Another concern is that the impacts will be felt mostly by our Scottish SME house builders, who play a vital role in getting housing to market, while the bigger UK-wide companies can pick and choose as they see fit.”
“In my time here, I have been consistent in calling for house builders to be supported and for more money to be spent on house building, not just because we need more homes, which we do, but because of the multiplier effects in a boost to supply chains, improved local infrastructure and increased economic activity. I agree with Homes for Scotland, which notes that, despite plans to exclude affordable housing, the current proposals do not reflect enough on how developments are structured. Most developers use private housing to subsidise affordable housing, so if the overall business model does not stack, there will be an impact on affordable housing.”
“Some might claim that industry simply does not want to pay more tax—I am sure that that is true—but that does not mean to say that the bill will not have an impact. The concerns that are being expressed can certainly not be soothed until industry has more detail. It was therefore difficult to take a view on a principled basis, beyond accepting the principle that something must be done and that the something should be a tax to ameliorate cladding issues. However, the tax is not based on the polluter-pays principle. As our report says, there is “a lack of detail provided in relation to the administrative systems and process, calculation method, and rates”. That is quite the list. I would like to pick out a few areas for further examination, the first of which is the housing market.”
“I add my voice in support of those who were affected by Grenfell and its resultant impact. We cannot ever forget the people who are behind all our discussions today. I agree that it is a pity that the Scottish Government has been put in this position by the UK Government. In fairness to the UK Government, it has consistently made clear that its preference was for a UK-wide scheme. Today’s debate is about the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s stage 1 report, and I want to reflect on my views on why the committee arrived at some of the recommendations that it did. The unanimous decision not to support the principles of the bill at stage 1 is highly unusual. Put simply, there is still too much detail to be fleshed out.”
“If the bill is not supported, the Scottish Government will have no choice but to look to the existing capital budget envelope for the amount between £360 million and £450 million that the levy is intended to generate over 12 to 15 years. I look forward to discussions this afternoon, and I ask members to reflect on my comments now and in my stage 1 report response, and to support the bill at decision time. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Kenneth Gibson to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, for around eight minutes. 15:09”
“As I stated at my evidence session on the bill on 18 November last year, it is my intention that indicative rates for the levy will be published in June this year, alongside the appropriate impact assessments. The committee has recommended a strengthening of the reporting requirements in the bill to require the Scottish Government to report at intervals of three years and to include an assessment of the impacts of the measure on the Scottish housing market. I am happy to accept those recommendations and confirm my intention to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to reflect that. I hope that those updates and commitments address the key issues that the committee highlighted in its stage 1 report, and I welcome any further questions from colleagues. The bill is about funding cladding remediation in a way that is fair.”
“The committee also recommended that affordable homes that are funded by local authorities should not be subject to the levy. I agree with that position. Provision that is already included in the bill captures the vast majority of social and affordable homes that are being delivered, and we will continue to engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to ensure that all relevant activity is captured. The committee raised a further concern around measuring impacts. At £30 million per annum, the levy represents around 0.6 per cent of the value of the new-build housing market in Scotland. It has also been introduced alongside an equivalent levy in England, which significantly reduces any risk of tax arbitrage. I welcome the committee’s ask for further details on the impact.”
“That will, of course, protect small and medium-sized developers by either removing them entirely from the charge or providing a sizeable reduction in their chargeable activities. The levy-free allowance will play a role in mitigating impacts on rural development, with its effects being most acute in those areas that are designated as “remote small towns” and “remote rural areas” under the Scottish Government’s sixfold urban rural classification. As viability in remote rural areas was particularly raised by the committee, I confirm that we will continue the work that we have been undertaking with rural stakeholders throughout stage 1 to ascertain whether additional measures are required to effectively protect rural development.”
“Although both the Scottish and UK Governments assess that the overall impact of the respective levies will be low, it is right that the topic is given appropriate consideration. I will draw attention to areas where I can provide updates that look to address concerns around impacts. First, regarding the levy-free allowance, as I set out in my stage 1 report response, it is my intention to indicate a 19-unit threshold for the levy-free allowance in the bill. That annual allowance of levy-free units will apply equally across the tax base. Our analysis indicates that a threshold of 19 units will exempt just under 20 per cent of new-build sales from the charge and remove just under 80 per cent of those undertaking relevant development activity from any need to interact with the tax at all.”
“Regarding the stage 1 report, I take the opportunity to thank everyone who gave evidence during the stage 1 process and the many stakeholders who have supported the development of the legislation so far. I also thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill and its stage 1 report. I know that no recommendation was made on the general principles of the bill, and I trust that the committee and the Parliament more widely will receive my response to the stage 1 report and my remarks today in the spirit in which they are intended, which is one of positive engagement with the substance of the committee’s findings and its concerns. I note that the committee’s primary concern was around impacts.”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Ivan McKee: Do I have time, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, minister. Michelle Thomson: I appreciate that, and I will be very quick. In relation to the minister’s comment that no further proposals were forthcoming, does the minister accept that Fionna Kell from Homes for Scotland said in her evidence to our committee that it was not asked to identify alternatives? Ivan McKee: The Government will, of course, listen to people who come forward with proposals, and it is no secret that that work has been under way for a period of time. If there were alternative proposals, we would have expected those to have been put forward.”
“The specificity of the offence—the formal legal recognition of strangulation as a distinct high- risk act—enables justice systems elsewhere to intervene earlier and more effectively. The Government states that it is committed to reducing violence against women and girls but, on this matter, the evidence goes beyond principle: it is empirical. The question for us now is simple: if we know that, as proven by the research that I mentioned, action can prevent homicides, why would we wait? It is time for us to act. 13:00”
“The evidence is clear that a stand-alone non- fatal strangulation offence saves lives. In Scotland, we do not yet have such an offence. I know that the Scottish Government has stated that it does not believe that a stand-alone offence is necessary at this time, and it has made various arguments about existing laws on assault, attempted murder and so on. I also know that ministers have said that they will keep the matter under review. However, the current legal framework is insufficient. Although we might introduce additional legislative complexity with a stand-alone offence, we would also improve outcomes. Fundamentally, the evidence that is before us shows that general assault laws do not deliver the same prevention effect.”
“We know that it often leaves little visible injury and, historically, it has been treated as a simple assault. The research explains that that legal vacuum has had fatal consequences. Victims would be nearly killed, yet the police could often charge only a minor offence. That had the effect of weakening justice responses, sending the wrong message to perpetrators and leaving the victims exposed. Where laws have been introduced, things have changed, as the study shows. Police classify more intimate partner violence cases as aggravated assault and arrest rates for aggravated IPV have increased, especially in cases involving women who are most exposed. In other words, the law empowers earlier, stronger intervention, thus breaking the pathway from non-fatal strangulation to homicide.”
“Among adults aged 18 to 49—the age group that is most affected—US states saw a 14 per cent reduction in female intimate partner homicide and a 27 per cent reduction in male intimate partner homicide, compared with what would have otherwise occurred. Those are not modelling assumptions or advocacy claims; they are causal effects derived from a rigorous two-stage difference-in-differences methodology. The study goes further. It finds no similar reductions in killings by strangers, which tells us that the laws did not simply coincide with wider crime declines. Instead, the drop is specific, targeted and clearly linked to non-fatal strangulation legislation. Why do we care? We care because non-fatal strangulation is one of the strongest predictors of later homicide.”
“I, too, thank Claire Baker for her work in this matter and for obtaining the debate, and I accord my own respects to the power of collaborative cross-party working. I want to speak a little more about the research paper “Disrupting Violence, Protecting Lives: Strangulation Laws and Intimate Partner Homicides”, which is very compelling and shows beyond reasonable doubt that treating non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone criminal offence saves lives. The paper analyses nearly 30 years of data linking non-fatal strangulation laws across the United States with detailed homicide statistics. The researchers show that, where non-fatal strangulation laws were introduced, intimate partner homicides fell dramatically.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its provision of funding for humanitarian aid, what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government in relation to humanitarian issues arising in Ukraine as a result of landmines and other explosive threats. (S6O-05329)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the Scottish Land & Estates report “Repopulating Rural Scotland”, including how the recommendations align with its current strategies to address rural depopulation. (S6O-05292)”
“We need clarity that National Wealth Fund moneys will be deployed in the near future, and I hope to be able to say that more of that £200 million will be able to be deployed in the future.”
“It is right to say that the UK Government pledged £200 million of National Wealth Fund moneys to projects associated with Grangemouth. On a number of occasions, I have made the case to UK ministers on the imperative of releasing that money as soon as possible. The National Wealth Fund should be a far more flexible operation than it has been in the past. It is waiting for projects to get to the financial investment decision stage. Obviously, we were using the £25 million just transition fund to help projects to get to the FID stage. The National Wealth Fund needs to be a lot more flexible. I had a chat with Michael Shanks, the UK energy minister, about that this morning, and he agrees with me. The National Wealth Fund is engaging with prospective developers, as are the Scottish Government and its partners.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary and all our Scottish agencies for their determined efforts to create a just transition for Grangemouth. I note that the UK Government has now joined the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to support the allocation of up to £3 million for my MiAlgae’s bioreactor with £1.5 million over two years. However, has the cabinet secretary managed to get any clarity on the promise that the UK Government made on 23 February this year, that it would provide £200 million? By my calculations, it is still £198.5 million short. Gillian Martin: I thank Michelle Thomson for that question and for her dogged determination in holding both Governments to account on our duties to step in and secure the future for Grangemouth.”
“I absolutely agree that we need robust data collection, but we need that data to be disaggregated by sex. We know that ADHD and autism present differently in women and girls. We know that women are much better at masking and at using coping strategies to hide distress, but that delays diagnosis. Such girls are underidentified in childhood, and women can often reach a crisis point before receiving— Daniel Johnson: Will Michelle Thomson take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: It would need to be brief, as the member is about to conclude. Michelle Thomson: I am indeed. I was coming to my last sentence. Without sex-specific data, we risk designing services that fail half the population. That is not a technical detail; it is the foundation for equitable care. 13:25”
“However, as I have said, the problem is complex, and so are the mechanisms for funding. We need to acknowledge that. I agree with the pragmatic approach that is suggested in the report that there should be, in the interim, a separate funding stream that is dedicated to wider service development. Much more thought needs to be given to the potential for digital solutions. Coming from an information technology background, I know that that is easy to say, but I absolutely acknowledge the complexity, and I appreciate how difficult it will be to provide those solutions. However, if we could start to unlock the data sources, that would result in some very powerful tools. I will pick up on some of the points that have been made on data. We cannot solve what we cannot see.”
“The figures that have been quoted directly reflect a loss of productivity, and we know that there are productivity challenges in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Higher unemployment rates increase reliance on benefits. Businesses are losing skilled workers who cannot access timely support. Schools struggle to keep pupils engaged, which leads to lower educational attainment and reduced future earnings. The justice system bears additional costs through higher rates of offending linked to untreated conditions. Every delay in diagnosis and intervention translates into lost economic output and increased public spending. That is a cycle that we cannot afford to ignore. We know that the funding is fragmented and insufficient. Unless there are dedicated funding streams, we cannot establish the specialist pathways that are needed.”
“We know that neurodevelopmental conditions intersect with education, employment, justice and social care. We also know that people are being referred into mental health pathways that were never designed for them, which—we must not forget—is overwhelming clinicians as well as delaying care for those who have severe mental illness. The number of vacancies in psychiatry is rising, and burnouts are accelerating. The system is fundamentally under strain from every angle. We have heard waiting list figures for assessments. Some regions are experiencing delays of more than five years, and I have also had a high number of inquiries from my constituents about their own issues. I want to focus my brief remarks on the financial cost of those problems to our economy.”
“I, too, thank Daniel Johnson for bringing the debate to the Parliament. I also thank him for his bravery in being so vocal about some of the challenges that he has faced, which is not something that people appreciate enough. My interest in this issue was triggered by the eminent Dr Premal Shah, who set up the Lothian adult ADHD and ASD clinics. He is a long-term family friend and quite the force in this area. I agree that the report is excellent. I enjoyed reading it, and I congratulate the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland on its work. I particularly liked the framing of this issue as a “wicked problem”—one that is complex, interconnected and resistant to quick fixes. We need to bear that in mind. It is not just a health issue; it is a systemic challenge that touches every part of society.”
“It was deeply disappointing for a range of reasons, including for our college sector, that the position on employer national insurance contributions was maintained in the UK budget. It is putting unhelpful and undesirable pressure on our colleges, as it is on many other organisations across the public sector. The Presiding Officer: Question 2 has been withdrawn. Legal Aid (North East Scotland) 3.”
“Funding is at the heart of this issue, but Colleges Scotland has also made clear the unaffordability of the employer national insurance contributions. Has the minister been able to have any further discussions with the United Kingdom Government, which levied that charge? It is having a disproportionate impact on many businesses but, arguably, nowhere more so than on colleges. Ben Macpherson: The member has raised important points. Although Scottish Government ministers, including me, have recognised the financial pressures on our college sector, whether through the Audit Scotland report or the work of the Scottish Funding Council, we have to recognise collectively that the scenario includes external pressures that are outwith the Scottish Government’s control.”
“Last week, the United Kingdom chancellor increased duty on Scotch whisky. That has heaped pressure on that vital sector and the jobs in it, including those in my constituency. Another, bigger issue is US tariffs. The First Minister has already pressed the case all the way to the Oval office, but will he now exert pressure on the UK Government to stand up for Scotland and to press for a deal in this vitally important industry?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what it considers to be an acceptable risk of harm as defined in the Scottish Prison Service policy on the admission of transgender women to women’s prisons. (S6O- 05239)”
“Until we challenge and dismantle the systems that treat women as objects for consumption, violence will persist. Let us unite not just in words but in action to build a society in which every woman and girl is safe, respected and free to live with dignity. 15:40”
“That is a point that I have consistently reiterated. If we are truly committed to ending violence against women and girls, we must address the root causes, including the commodification of women’s bodies. The Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill, which Ash Regan has introduced, is a critical step forward. By criminalising the purchase of sex, the bill targets demand, not those who are exploited by the sex trade. I know that the Government has some concerns relating to amendments that would be needed to the bill, but I hope that the Government can support it at least through stage 1, to make a statement that we, in the SNP, agree with the principle. That would send a clear message that women are not commodities to be bought and sold.”
“However, I reiterate—all members in the chamber know that this is my view—that the Supreme Court decision has made it clear that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, “sex” means biological sex. Picking up on an earlier point, the decision to shelve legislation on misogyny disappointed many people, and we have heard that reiterated today, but at least there is now action to add sex as a protected characteristic. It was ridiculous that women, who make up 51 per cent of the Scottish population, were the only group not to be covered. I do not underestimate the systemic nature of the challenge, however, and, in some respects, we are still at the early stages. We still do not routinely disaggregate data across policy making by sex—or other data collectors—in order to glean critical insights, particularly around economic measures.”
“To remind members, the white ribbon symbolises a pledge to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls. To pick up Maggie Chapman’s earlier point, all men here, particularly those who are in this profession, should not remain silent and should speak out regardless of whether they agree with a person’s political party or view. We all need to do that. Frankly, our efforts are undermined when the Government fails to prioritise women’s safety, dignity and privacy. The Scottish Government has made public commitments, but its actions have often fallen short. Sometimes, that has been because of complexity, and I understand how difficult such matters are.”
“Engaging men and boys is crucial to shifting the societal norms that underpin gender-based violence. Men have a clear role in challenging toxic masculinity, rejecting harmful stereotypes and modelling healthy relationships. That means speaking out, as we have seen with the very successful Police Scotland “Don’t be that guy” campaign. Men have to recognise that ending violence against women is not a burden for women to shoulder alone; it is a collective responsibility, and men have to be at the forefront of the movement. I hope that the promotion of the white ribbon campaign by Ben Macpherson will continue. Now that he is in a ministerial position, we need somebody to pick that up—I see that he is pointing at Paul McLennan, behind me, which is excellent.”
“It is not only a matter of curiosity, as we sometimes hear said; it fundamentally shapes attitudes, which ultimately distorts relationships and fuels abuse. The trauma that is inflicted by that exposure can also be profound, and boys become victims, too. Experts warn that the eroticisation of violence in pornography can lead to traumatised sexuality, difficulties in ultimately forming healthy relationships and, in some cases, a cycle of aggression or, alternatively, dissociation. I put it on the record, up front, that this is a public health problem that we cannot afford to ignore, and I welcome the efforts to work with the UK Government to address this important reserved area. However, if we are to end violence against women and girls, we must also address the role of men, not as bystanders but as active allies and agents of change.”
“Boys are more likely to actively seek out pornography, and repeated exposure reduces shock and confusion, normalising harmful behaviours and making them seem acceptable. By the age of 15, most boys have seen pornography, and a significant proportion report that they want to act out what they have seen. In Scotland, we are not immune to that. A major Scottish study by the University of the Highlands and Islands found that 86 per cent of boys aged 13 to 15 in the west of Scotland had viewed online pornography. NHS Scotland’s own research highlighted that 41 per cent of popular online pornography videos that it analysed depicted violence against women. The content distorts young people’s understanding of sex, relationships and consent, and it normalises aggression and exploitation.”
“In this debate to mark the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I think that we are united in our commitment to end violence against women and girls in all its forms, online and offline. As has been said, this is not just a women’s issue; it is a societal crisis that demands action from every sector, community and individual. Let us begin by confronting a difficult but urgent reality: the pervasive nature of online pornography and its impact on young people, especially boys. Recent research by the Children’s Commissioner for England has revealed a disturbing link between boys’ exposure to violent pornography and subsequent harmful sexual behaviour. In half of the cases examined, acts of sexual violence that are depicted in pornography, such as strangulation or slapping, were mirrored in real-life abuse among children.”
“Let us not make more mistakes. Let us do this properly. I support the Conservatives in opposing the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the winding-up speeches. I call Lorna Slater. Lorna Slater: I have no more remarks, thank you, Presiding Officer. 17:57”
“Douglas Ross: If I am allowed to, I will The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will allow it very briefly, Mr Ross, after which you will need to wind up. Ivan McKee: Half of what Douglas Ross said was about our rushing things through, and the other half was about our taking too long to fully investigate what the issue was and what its solution was. Douglas Ross: I ask the minister to listen to what members are saying. If this was the emergency that the Government says it is, its officials should have taken less than two months to bring it to ministers’ attention, ministers should not have sat on it for 10 weeks before they brought it to the chamber, and we should not be rushing the bill through. That is the whole point of what I said to Michelle Thomson. We should be taking our time, because we know how bad the Government is at legislating.”
“Jeremy Balfour’s point was this: after ministers knew about it, when did they start to introduce the legislation? Ministers agreed on 22 September to progress emergency primary legislation to remedy the matter. The minister who responded to Jeremy Balfour said that the Government needed three weeks. It has been more than three weeks since 22 September, although I appreciate that there was a recess. It has been 10 weeks since the Government not just found out about the issue but decided that it needed to do something urgently. I ask the minister please not to tell me and other MSPs that he was treating it as an emergency, given that he sat on it for 10 weeks before he even took it to the chamber. I know that I have used all my time, Presiding Officer, and I am grateful for your indulgence. Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention?”