Paul Sweeney
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“The single point of contact pilots that we have embarked on are making a significant difference in ensuring that people get the ability to discuss their treatment anxieties and their support. We have invested £2.5 million to expand the reach of that programme across Scotland.”
“As a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I welcome the news on the proposed legislation, which is very welcome. Indeed, it is something that has been long hoped for.”
“It is more precise than conventional radiotherapy, and the team behind the trial in England has begun the process of establishing it in Scotland.”
“I thank Mesothelioma UK for continuing to raise awareness each year through action mesothelioma day. On 3 July, the Scottish Government will proudly show our support by lighting up in blue St Andrew’s house and Victoria Quay in Edinburgh to get behind the go blue for meso campaign.”
“There is an awful lot to be recognised in terms of holding people to account, which has been a feature of this campaign over time. The Scottish Government confirms its commitment to continue to stand alongside those who are affected by mesothelioma, to ensure that they receive the compassionate care and treatment that they require at ever…”
“The fact that there are such abandoned factories and that the people who enter them—whether for urban exploration or whatever else—do not understand the risks that they are exposing themselves to is a difficulty that we must overcome.”
The complete record
Every one of 813 lines we hold for Paul Sweeney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 17.
“Glasgow Kelvin College, in my region, said that there were 1,200 applicants for 300 places in the care system, so people are being denied the chance to get into the sector. Only one in four people who want to get into the sector are getting that chance. We have heard time and again in the debate that this problem has nothing to do with the Scottish Government—that it is a hapless bystander or a well-meaning administrator and that the malevolent force is somehow outside Scotland. Sandesh Gulhane: I was shocked that the social care minister was too scared to take an intervention. Does Paul Sweeney agree that the crisis started in 2015, that it is a crisis of the SNP’s making and that the SNP is blaming everyone but itself? Paul Sweeney: We have had a decade-long decline.”
“It will improve rights to sick pay and drive up wages. The cabinet secretary may also want to consider that he has been talking a lot about sponsored care workers in the system, but they are on £12.82 an hour or £25,000 per annum, whichever is higher. The minimum wage for adult social care workers in Scotland is £12.60 an hour. I do not know how the cabinet secretary can stand there and justify paying overseas workers almost £500 more than staff who are domiciled in Scotland are paid, or how he can echo calls from exploitative capitalist employers so that they can rinse more out of the system. That is utterly shameful. We might also want to consider what the cabinet secretary is doing to advance the training pipeline for people who are seeking employment in the sector.”
“The minister was certainly right to praise unpaid and paid carers in the sector, but it is cold comfort when the system that exploits them and does not advance their interests is being defended by the minister. Neil Gray: Paul Sweeney points to low pay, and I recognise that, of course, we want to do more to support our critical social care workers. As I said, this Government has invested £950 million to ensure that at least the real working wage is being applied. Will Paul Sweeney confirm whether Labour-controlled Wales or, indeed, Labour- controlled England has gone any further than that? Paul Sweeney: The minister will know that the Employment Rights Bill, which is going through the UK Parliament just now, will result in a massive uplift in the rights and the bargaining power of care workers across the system.”
“We have spent this afternoon discussing a system that is in crisis, but there is precious little in the way of a systemic approach from the Government. During the past near two decades of the Government’s rule, there has been increasing fragmentation, a system characterised by low pay and, indeed, a complete failure of political leadership, which has led to a social care system—if it can even be called that; it is a social care structure—that is harming some of Scotland’s most vulnerable people, who are reliant on it. That is a national scandal that affects almost every household in Scotland. All the while, our hard-pressed social care staff struggle heroically to keep up a vital public service, despite low wages and poor working conditions.”
“We not only need international workers to bolster our workforce; we also deeply value the contribution that they make. Those international workers make up an estimated 26 per cent of our social care workforce. It is not brave— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Neil Gray: —to undermine our critical services; it is a disgrace.”
“There is nothing brave about sacrificing our critical services for our people, in the cause of supporting a Faragist approach to migration. We came to expect the draconian and Faragist approach to immigration from the Tories, but under a Labour Government, we have seen an even more severe approach, with a 77 per cent drop in the year ending June 2025 in the number of health and care visas granted by the Home Office. Labour went even further and closed the social care worker visa entirely, completely undermining our ability to provide care to the most vulnerable members of our society. Labour will undoubtedly say today that its focus is on supporting jobs for Scottish care workers, but the reality is that the demographics of our ageing population mean that we do not have enough workers in Scotland.”
“Jackie Baillie: That is fantastic. This challenge has been on-going for years now. Year after year, there have been vacancies in social care that the Government has been unable to fill because you do not pay them enough and because your terms and conditions are rubbish. Migration has been a recent phenomenon in the past two years— [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Gray. Jackie Baillie: You had the power to do something about it, but you have failed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, Ms Baillie. Neil Gray: I challenge Jackie Baillie to defend her Government’s approach to migration, which, in the words of the industry, is undermining our approach to recruitment and retention. She failed to do so because her leader describes it as “brave”.”
“In May, Donald Macaskill of Scottish Care said: “When the United Kingdom Government, without consultation and engagement with the care sector … unilaterally decided we can no longer recruit from abroad, they did so with little appreciation of just how damaging their actions could be.” In November, he then urged Scottish Labour to challenge the latest migration proposals on settlement, after 15 years of branding them “insensitive to Scotland’s distinct needs”. He went on to say: “Their impact especially in Scotland’s remote and rural communities is incalculable. They also send a damaging message that the invaluable contributions of migrant care workers are not fully recognised or valued.” Does Jackie Baillie support the UK Government’s approach to migration that is undermining our communities? I will take her intervention.”
“Vic Rayner, the chief executive of the National Care Forum, said that “the truth is that the cupboard is bare” and that the “budget which neither recognises the contribution or the real cost of adult social care” feels like “a missed opportunity”. I must point out the glaring hypocrisy that is on display from the Labour Party today. Jackie Baillie spoke about recruitment challenges, but it is her party that has presided over some of the most restrictive migration policies that are delivering a hammer blow to social care. Jackie Baillie: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Neil Gray: I know that Jackie Baillie does not want to hear that, so instead I will share with her some comments from the sector.”
“I understand the situation, and I have asked for proper collaboration to happen between Great Ormond Street and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to ensure that Brie can get the treatment and support that she needs. I do not shirk the Government’s responsibility to work to improve social care. We are delivering on the commitments of the Care Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, which was passed by the Parliament, and we will establish a national social work agency by spring 2026. I am very open to working collaboratively on the issue with anyone in the chamber who wants to do so. Despite Labour’s claims of what it would do in power, I note that, far short of £15 an hour for social care workers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, did not mention social care once in her budget speech last week.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Neil Gray: If I can get the time back, Presiding Officer, I will take an intervention. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You can get the time back, cabinet secretary. Paul Sweeney: On collaboration and co- operation, the cabinet secretary might be aware of my constituent six-year-old Brie McCann, who is urgently waiting for a transfer to Great Ormond Street hospital for a heart transplant. Is he aware of that case, and is he doing something to expedite it? It is a matter of hours that we are talking about, which is why the issue is so urgent. Neil Gray: That is not directly related to social care, but of course I am aware of the issue. I spoke about the issue on BBC Radio Scotland’s “Breakfast” programme this morning.”
“I am sure that Mr Sweeney will understand the issues of suitability, not just concerning the space available, the scale of the activity concerned and the background that Mr Sweeney pointed out regarding that particular venue, but in relation to security and other implications that we need to be mindful of. I have already responded to Mr Bibby that transport is ultimately the responsibility of the organising company. However, we are in regular dialogue with Transport Scotland, and I know that Mr Batty is, too. Those are areas on which we continue to engage.”
“Perhaps it is worth considering what could be done to support charities in that respect. Last month, Phil Batty, the chief executive officer of Glasgow 2026, told me that the transport issue is still a big problem and raised the issue of what was done in 2014 on concessionary travel for ticket holders and people with accreditation. The Government does not seem keen to support that approach again, but could it be looked at? That would be an important incentive for people to use public transport for the games next year. Neil Gray: We went through extensive searches for potential venues, and the Corinthian was viewed to be the best according to the criteria that were set out at various levels.”
“I volunteered as a member of the medal ceremonies team for 2014. It was a fantastic experience, and the city was buzzing. The opportunity to recapture that feeling next year is really exciting. As someone who called for Glasgow to host the games as early as July 2023, when Australia pulled out, I am pleased that the Scottish Government eventually got behind the idea. The key item that has been announced today is the £150,000 funding for Scotland house, which is a great idea. The Corinthian is a fantastic venue, and a very successful one, but I was curious about why it was chosen when there are other venues in Glasgow city centre, such as the Centre for Contemporary Arts, which is a charitable organisation that has been through difficulties recently and could perhaps have benefited more from that investment.”
“Màiri McAllan: I am open minded about all the ways that we can take action to address the strain on the council and the on-going housing emergency in Glasgow. Common housing registers can be a tool to simplify and maximise access to social housing. I have to stress, though, that the responsibility for the management of allocating housing is for the social rented sector. I would want to ensure that the sector wanted such a register and that it was able to put it together. Paul Sweeney is quite right to note the number of organisations that would have to agree to it in order to make it work. Asylum Seeker Housing (Local Community Impact) 7.”
“Paul Sweeney: Establishing a common housing register has been a long-standing aspiration for more than 20 years since the transfer of the council’s housing stock. However, there are now more than 60 social housing providers in Glasgow, making such a register tricky to co-ordinate. The council aspires to set up a register, but it has found it very difficult logistically to achieve that. It would be good if the Government could step in and take a convening role. We know that, with more than 10,000 people in temporary accommodation who are waiting for housing or who have made an emergency application, there is real pressure on housing in Glasgow. A common housing register could hugely improve efficiency and reduce the costs for individual RSLs. It would be a worthwhile measure that could have a big impact.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, further to its previous answer on 12 November, whether it will take the lead in establishing a common housing register in Glasgow to simplify applications and address the city’s long social housing waiting lists. (S6O- 05219) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): The Scottish Government supports the establishment of a common housing register in Glasgow, either citywide or on a district basis, only where the council and housing associations that are involved are in agreement that that is the best way forward to manage their allocation policies. I have asked my officials to look further at the matter, to get a greater understanding of the views of registered social landlords and the council on common housing registers. However, I must stress that they would need to approve the matter.”
“The SPCB agreed in March 2020 to index the staff cost provision annually using a mix of average weekly earnings—AWE—and the annual survey of hours and earnings, ASHE. However, it moved to AWE in 2023-24 when we found that the ASHE index had become progressively unreliable. What members choose to do thereafter is entirely a matter for them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 6 has been withdrawn. I am afraid that the member who was to ask question 7 arrived some 12 and a half minutes late to this item, so I am minded not to call them in light of their lateness. IT Systems (Resilience) 8.”
“It would also be helpful for the corporate body to note that a significant delta has emerged between the staffing budget that is available to Scottish members of the United Kingdom Parliament, which currently sits at £263,370, and that available to members of the Scottish Parliament, who have at their disposal only £162,000 as a baseline budget. That creates a lot of divergence in parliamentary employment opportunities and career progression within the Scottish Parliament vis-à-vis similar opportunities. I encourage Jackson Carlaw to consider those pressures. Jackson Carlaw: That question was broader in scope. The chief executive has informally met and engaged with the trade unions, but the corporate body’s responsibility is to identify the indices by which all those provisions will be uprated.”
“Therefore, our responsibility is to set the framework within which the salary increases can be agreed, but it is for individual members, as the employers, to determine any salary increase within the overall budget on their own or in concert with colleagues. Paul Sweeney: I recognise the point that the member makes that there is an unusual relationship in which the corporate body sets the overall budget but, notionally, the member of the Scottish Parliament is the direct employer of the staff. However, it would be helpful and a useful innovation for the corporate body to establish a relationship with the trade unions that represent parliamentary staff, at least to understand some of their concerns about cost of living issues and pressures.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consult MSP staff trade unions before deciding on uprating the staff cost provision in the 2026-27 financial year. (S6O-05223) Jackson Carlaw (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): As noted in previous years— the answer is broadly similar—the SPCB will not consult the trade unions because it is not the employer of members’ staff. The SPCB is responsible for funding the members’ expenses scheme and for determining which indices are used to operate the overall provision, including staff provision. That arrangement is set out in the scheme as agreed by the Parliament.”
“I hope that the Government can take a convening role in trying to make that work sooner rather than later, because we are seeing a lot of projects in the here and now that are being strained and damaged by it. The Springburn example is just the latest example of the issue. It is very frustrating to act as a glorified estate agent for charities, trying to find new accommodation for them. Let us try to avoid the problem at source. I move amendment 1.”
“The council would see that the building has been used and that the owner is aiming to build towards full restoration, and would therefore give him some leeway. Currently, the system is purely binary—it is on or off; the owner either gets hammered with full rates or they do not. There needs to be a lot more slack in the system and a lot more attentiveness to the permutations and to the difficulties and complexities with listed buildings. That is what my amendments are all about. I am trying to signal to the Government that there are practical issues with how the removal of the exemption has been implemented in the past couple of years, particularly in Glasgow. Glasgow City Council is making an effort to work through this, and we need that to be standard best practice across Scotland. That should involve working with COSLA.”
“Set designers, studio people, artists and charities were all kicked out, because he can claim a year’s temporary exemption for a fully empty building. That permutation is crazy. It has resulted in a stupid outcome for Springburn, it has undermined the local economy and a lot of small businesses and organisations are really stressed by it. Marcus Dean is faced with the dilemma of what to do with the empty building. The only thing that he can do is convert it into student flats, because it is single aspect. He cannot create dual aspects in the building because of the listed building constraints. In that scenario, it is obvious that he should be able to work with the local authority, which would realise that he is trying to do the right thing and is keeping the building wind and watertight and is maintaining it to a baseline level.”
“I mentioned the example of Govanhill baths and some of the city centre projects that have been stalled or frustrated by the rates issue. There is also Flemington house in Springburn. Marcus Dean, who did up the Abbey Mill business centre in Paisley, took the building on when Glasgow Kelvin College left it about 15 years ago. About a third of the building was turned into a business centre and various organisations were located in it. Two thirds of the floor space was still unused, because it was very expensive to deal with the asbestos, the electrics and so on. Marcus Dean said that he was making decent enough money from rental income on the building to wash its face, but then he got suddenly hammered with a rates bill for all the empty floor space. That sank the business model overnight, and he had to evict the entire building.”
“It is also important to note that, once construction is under way, the reliefs would be granted for premises that are under construction. There would be a long stop date of two years, with agreed milestones if insufficient progress had been made. That would create really powerful incentives for owners to bring the buildings to market and to get renovations under way. More detailed criteria could be involved; for example, if a charitable organisation is trying to restore a building but its grant funding falls short, it would be crazy for the Government to fund it through grants on the one hand but tax those away with rates on the other. That would undermine the purpose of a charity trying to save a listed building that might provide great community benefits.”
“That would include design progress—for example, appointing a design team, commissioning design work and incurring and paying design team fees—and a programme that can be linked to Royal Institute of British Architects stages of development; planning progress, including a pre-application discussion with the planning authority or an application for planning consent, with planning queries being addressed timeously; and construction progress, including showing that tenders are under way and that contractors are appointed. Those criteria would be set to avoid an owner giving the appearance of developing a project without there being any real action towards getting on site. It would avoid bad-faith acting from speculators or land bankers.”
“Although the approach has been generally beneficial, it has caused problems. I hope that the Government is alive to those problems and that we can work collaboratively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to address them. I know that Glasgow is considering a recommended solution. The proposal, which comes from the built heritage commission for Glasgow, is that empty property relief be granted for listed buildings at 100 per cent for a period of up to two years from the date of acquisition, on condition of demonstrating real development progress.”
“He told me that the price had just been reduced massively and that it could be a real bargain for him. I informed him that the reason why the owner had reduced the price was that they were getting charged for business rates on the empty building. I could see his face drop, and he said, “I can’t afford to take the hit on business rates for two or three years until I get planning consent and renovate it”. His interest suddenly ebbed away and that building still sits there derelict—it is a blight on the public realm and an underutilised economic asset. My amendments are probing amendments to illustrate to the Government some of the unintended consequences of the removal of the exemption, as devolved to local authorities. We have seen some local authorities do it—Glasgow City Council being one of the most notable ones.”
“He did not programme that into his business plan when he was looking to renovate that building. Mr Lewis says that it is absurd that, with, say, the old Clydesdale Bank building on St Vincent Place, if he converted it into a hotel, the hotel could move in and not have to pay rates for a year, even though it would not need that exemption, because it would be generating revenue. The incentives are all in the wrong place. I hope that the minister can see that there are scenarios in which the current arrangements do not work well. As a result, the market for listed buildings in Glasgow has frozen. There is no desire from people to buy those buildings. I met a guy who was looking to buy the old Tusk nightclub and the Waverley tea room in Shawlands. He was really enthusiastic when I first met him.”
“The organisation is then levied with building rates for a property that it cannot occupy or generate revenue from, which threatens its viability as a going concern. That is exactly what has happened to the Govanhill Baths Building Preservation Trust. I am sure that we all agree that it would be absurd to see the whole thing unravelling after all that effort. The same thing is happening with commercial property. For example, Stephen Lewis of HFD Property Group, who has been looking at a listed property in the city centre with a view to renovating it to bring it back into productive use, has said that he did not know that he was going to be charged business rates for several years, when it will take a year to get planning consent and another two years to renovate the building.”
“However, a number of complications have arisen, and the council has said that what has happened was unforeseen. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is important for all levels of government to be aware of such issues as they arise and to adjust accordingly to ensure that the public good is maintained as best it can be. An issue has arisen in circumstances in which, for example, a building preservation trust or a charity has acquired a listed building that is vacant or derelict and that would require a lot of investment to bring it back into productive use. It might be the case that the organisation has secured grant funding, but, unfortunately, in undertaking the restoration programme, the grant funding has fallen short of the cost of the renovation, so the project has stalled.”
“I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments. Although these are unexpected circumstances, they enable me to bring to light a long-running issue that I have been dealing with in Glasgow over the past 18 months or so. Glasgow City Council’s removal of the previous exemption from non-domestic rates for vacant listed buildings has generally been a positive thing for the city in creating incentives for building owners to utilise vacant floor space and to bring listed buildings that were derelict back into productive use. We have seen a flurry of planning applications going through the council in relation to that. The issue has been a long-running one in Glasgow, where there is enough empty floor space in the city centre to fill the Empire State building in New York.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Fulton MacGregor, who joins us remotely. 13:29”
“Nevertheless, it would require a statutory instrument and regulatory framework to be put before the Parliament by ministers, and no discussion has taken place between Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government so far. There is an opportunity to address the issue. In my view, the best option is to move to a combined authority approach for the Glasgow city region, which is long overdue and would certainly unleash a lot of potential across Glasgow and the greater Glasgow area. I would like the Government to look seriously at that, because—as has been mentioned—the issue is not just the boundaries or the tunnel, but a whole lot of other things— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Sweeney— Paul Sweeney: It is over to the minister— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude—you are over your time. Thank you.”
“A third option is an agreement by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to provide additional funding for Glasgow to cover the £820,000-a-year shortfall in the baseline local roads allocation in order to maintain the tunnel. However, the Scottish Government’s position is that it must be funded through the general budget allocation that is provided to Glasgow City Council; I think that that is completely absurd. Finally, we could resort to the unilateral introduction by Glasgow City Council of a number- plate recognition camera toll system. I think that that is the least desirable of all the options, but it is certainly the only one that is available to the council.”
“One solution is adoption of the Clyde tunnel as a national trunk road by Transport Scotland, in the same way as the Kingston bridge and the Erskine bridge have been adopted. However, that solution has been repeatedly resisted by the Scottish Government, despite calls over the years from me and other MSPs for it to be pursued. A second solution is adoption of the Clyde tunnel as a regional transport asset by the city region councils, co-funded via Strathclyde Partnership for Transport or a new combined authority, restoring the approach that existed via the Strathclyde roads system from 1975 to 1996. However, that is not under consideration by the Scottish Government.”
“That is certainly unsustainable. The impact is accentuated from a social justice point of view because Glasgow has the lowest car ownership in Scotland, with only 376 cars per 1,000 residents, in comparison with 678 cars per 1,000 people in Renfrewshire. Districts with the lowest rates of car ownership in the country, such as Drumchapel and Govan, have to pay for the tunnel’s maintenance via higher council tax rates, while the richest communities in Scotland with the highest levels of car ownership, such as Bearsden and Kilmacolm, enjoy the tunnel free of charge and generally have lower council tax rates as a result. I see four solutions to the problem, which is unsustainable and socially unjust.”
“The Scottish Government’s current position is that the Clyde tunnel is a local Glasgow City Council issue, but this debate has made it clear that it is not. I am sure that members across the chamber will agree that the injustice of the status quo is simply unsustainable. Glasgow City Council has had the largest cut to its budget of any local authority in Scotland, and it does not receive a proportionate share of the business rates revenue that is generated within the city boundary. The Glasgow roads budget has also been disproportionately cut as a consequence. The Clyde tunnel maintenance budget now consumes 10 per cent of the entire roads maintenance budget for the city. That is 762 metres of road out of 1.8 million metres of road in the city, so 10 per cent of the budget is going on 0.04 per cent of the road network.”
“The current Glasgow city deal covers eight local authorities in the city region, but there is no statutory agreement with the accompanying powers. With regard to the Clyde tunnel, that means that while Glasgow City Council shoulders the financial burden of maintaining that piece of critical infrastructure, which benefits the whole city region, neighbouring local authorities do not have a say in how the tunnel is funded or in decisions on its future. The member for Eastwood said that I should rue my position on the issue, but I think that he ought to rue his party’s position 30 years ago, when it vindictively dismantled the Strathclyde region. At the time, John Major described Strathclyde as an “abomination”, but we are now seeing the unintended consequences of that foolish, self- interested decision.”
“I thank the member for Eastwood for lodging the motion for debate. The member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth summarised the issue succinctly when he talked about the wider regional issue that is facing Glasgow. The Clyde tunnel is an important piece of infrastructure for the entire Glasgow city region area, but funding and maintaining it is the responsibility of Glasgow City Council alone. That is symptomatic of a bigger challenge for the Glasgow city region. It is the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the United Kingdom, but, with no devolution deal or elected mayor, its governance is fragmented across at least eight local authorities, and it has limited access to the types of economic growth policy levers and funding that the big city regions in England now enjoy.”
“I say to the cabinet secretary, “Please say no.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before we move to the open debate, I advise members that there is a lot of interest in speaking in the debate and we are very tight for time. We will resume with other business at 2 pm and we need to allow parliamentary staff sufficient time to clear the chamber between the two sittings. Therefore, members must stick to the time that they have agreed to, which is up to four minutes. I call Jamie Hepburn, to be followed by Pam Gosal. 12:56”
“Will the member take an intervention? Jackson Carlaw: Unfortunately, I do not have time because I am coming to the end of my seven minutes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am afraid that there is no extra time available. Jackson Carlaw: I hope that Mr Sweeney is going to repent as well, because I have been very concerned by his tacit support for the proposal. If he is going to repent, no doubt he will say so in this speech. I say to the cabinet secretary that I understand the issues about funding local services and all of that, but the proposal is a deeply damaging one that, if extended, could have fundamentally damaging consequences for the Scottish economy, the healthcare and wellbeing of our constituents, and the whole of Scotland.”
“The member is absolutely right to say that the programme can be used to fund infrastructure development. It will be used for capital infrastructure, which he cited some examples of, and as we go through the process, decisions will be taken on what infrastructure will be funded through it. Historic Buildings (Town Centres) 3.”
“It is welcome that the Scottish Government is exploring innovative ways of raising extra capital in addition to the normal method of raising it through the national loans fund. In what scenarios does the Deputy First Minister envisage bonds being issued? Will they be issued in cases where there are high returns, such as investment in Clyde metro or expansion of the Scottish Event Campus? Could they also be used for national health service projects such as the new institute of neurological sciences in Glasgow? Kate Forbes: I am pleased by Paul Sweeney’s welcome of this step, and it is important for me to state on the record that it is about borrowing better, not borrowing more. It is about borrowing within the limits that are set through the fiscal framework.”
“We expect that individual councils will be taking legal advice on how they should proceed and on the effect of the retrospective legislation.”
“The Government considers the bill to be compatible with convention rights and that it is within the legislative competence of the Parliament. Liam Kerr rose— Craig Hoy rose— Ivan McKee: I will give way—who was first? Members should decide between them. Craig Hoy: Will the minister answer the question that Mr Griffin put to him? We know that the Government is on the hook for the £350 million, but is he giving a guarantee to councils that all other associated costs that might arise, including interest, legal costs or fees associated with debt recovery will be underwritten by the Scottish Government? Ivan McKee: The Government will have conversations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the matter now that it has been raised.”
“The affected ratepayers have already paid the rates that are demanded, so retrospectively validating the rates will not pose a severe or undue burden to them. At most, it will deprive them of a windfall that they had not expected or, indeed, budgeted for. We must weigh up the community interest against that. Failing to ensure that legislation is retrospective would mean a potential loss of up to £350 million in public revenue, as has been highlighted. That could result in either significant cuts to public services or compensatory tax rises being required in subsequent years. In that context, the Government considers that the bill strikes a fair balance between community interest and the rights of individuals.”
“Such legislation has been passed by the Parliament previously, including the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 2001, the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2002, the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013 and the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Relief from Additional Amount) (Scotland) Act 2018. There have been several occasions on which retrospective legislation has been taken forward successfully. The Scottish Government acknowledges that great care must be taken when changing the law with retrospective effect, and that there is a general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively. However, sometimes, it can be justified and is proportionate to do so; this is one such case. Crucially, the bill will not raise new revenue; it seeks to protect revenue that has already been collected.”
“Murdo Fraser: Is Mr McKee able to advise us whether Scottish Government lawyers have been able to find any precedents in case law that support the contention that legislative failure amounts to an exceptional circumstance as would be upheld to defeat the presumption under article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights? Ivan McKee: I will comment on the issue of retrospective legislation, which I think is at the core of what Murdo Fraser was talking about. Retrospective legislation is not inherently unfair or incompatible with human rights.”