Sue Webber
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to today’s debate on the legislative consent motion on the Railways Bill. As colleagues know, the bill represents a significant reshaping of how rail services and rail infrastructure will be overseen across Great Britain.”
“On the subject of public money, the entire premise of the climate plan is that the renewable investment that is outlined happens only because of subsidies from bill payers across the UK. I want to speak about transport.”
“Evidence that was considered by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee made it clear that open-access operators remain unconvinced that the new arrangements will protect their ability to compete on a level playing field.”
“Those are sensible steps. However, our party has a long-standing commitment to a rail system that grows instead of restricts choice, competition and freight capacity, which brings me to the principal issue that prevents me from supporting the LCM today.”
“We are committed to doing what we can, particularly in relation to the EV charging network—which, as an EV driver, I know has improved dramatically in the past five years and which is set to improve even more.”
“Any framework that risks weakening that model, whether unintentionally or through lack of safeguards, must be approached with caution. Similarly, on freight, Scotland has ambitious growth aspirations, but growth depends on confidence that freight paths will be protected, that investment will be worthwhile and that decisions affecting Scot…”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for Sue Webber, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“For those reasons, although I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s satisfaction with the amendments that have been made thus far, I do not believe that the bill in its current form provides sufficient certainty for operators, passengers or freight customers who rely on open and competitive access to our railways. The Scottish Conservatives cannot support the motion, but, equally, we recognise the technical nature of many of the provisions and the importance of continued co-operation around rail reform. 17:58”
“Any framework that risks weakening that model, whether unintentionally or through lack of safeguards, must be approached with caution. Similarly, on freight, Scotland has ambitious growth aspirations, but growth depends on confidence that freight paths will be protected, that investment will be worthwhile and that decisions affecting Scottish freight will be taken transparently and in the interests of the wider network. The bill includes duties relating to freight, but I remain unconvinced that those duties alone will offset the increased centralisation of access decisions.”
“Evidence that was considered by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee made it clear that open-access operators remain unconvinced that the new arrangements will protect their ability to compete on a level playing field. The committee also heard that, although assurances have been offered at United Kingdom level, operators still fear being disadvantaged in a system in which Great British Railways becomes the dominant operator and the main decision maker on access. We should not underestimate the value of open access to Scotland. Those services bring genuine choice to passengers and reduce pressure on taxpayer-funded operations, and they help to strengthen cross-border links that matter to our economy and our communities.”
“Those are sensible steps. However, our party has a long-standing commitment to a rail system that grows instead of restricts choice, competition and freight capacity, which brings me to the principal issue that prevents me from supporting the LCM today. My concern is focused squarely on the future of open- access operators and freight services. Those operators, such as those running commercially on key inter-city corridors, have been a vital source of innovation, lower fares and improved customer experience. Likewise, freight operators depend on fair and transparent access to the network to support economic growth, decarbonisation and supply chain resilience.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to today’s debate on the legislative consent motion on the Railways Bill. As colleagues know, the bill represents a significant reshaping of how rail services and rail infrastructure will be overseen across Great Britain. The Scottish Conservatives recognise that many of the revisions before us are technical in nature and that they follow extensive engagement between the two Governments. However, we also recognise that the bill will not alter the Scottish ministers’ existing powers over ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper or the funding and specification of rail infrastructure in Scotland. It is clear that, in several respects, the bill will strengthen formal consultation duties and will provide a clearer framework for interaction between the Governments.”
“We are committed to doing what we can, particularly in relation to the EV charging network—which, as an EV driver, I know has improved dramatically in the past five years and which is set to improve even more. The Government schemes to enable people to buy used and new EV cars have meant that people have had access to those types of vehicle. There will be an inevitable reduction in car kilometres as we build out our public transport networks and as people want to take active travel decisions. However, those who, like me, live in rural areas of Scotland will still need a car. That is why EVs will be critical to decarbonising road transport.”
“On the subject of public money, the entire premise of the climate plan is that the renewable investment that is outlined happens only because of subsidies from bill payers across the UK. I want to speak about transport. The SNP Government has committed to reducing car kilometres by 4 per cent and has said that at least 90 per cent of all car sales must be of electric vehicles by 2030. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how much those proposals will cost the average driver and, importantly, how the Scottish Government will ensure that the drive to net zero will not disproportionately impact motorists? Gillian Martin: What Sue Webber is not saying is that, actually, that is a UK-wide endeavour, and that a lot of the actions that are happening at UK level will prompt the change across Scotland.”
“The committee believes that making those changes will strengthen the Parliament’s committees and give them additional tools for more effective scrutiny. I invite members to support the motion at decision time. I move, That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 3rd Report, 2026 (Session 6), Standing Order rule changes arising from the Committee’s report ‘Strengthening committees’ effectiveness’ (SP Paper 977), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annex A of the report be made with effect from 11 May 2026. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Standing Order Rule Changes (Gender-sensitive Audit Recommendations)”
“Bringing the deadline forward will prevent such backlogs from occurring at the end of future sessions. Other proposals include strengthening committees’ annual reporting requirements and introducing a requirement for a dedicated debate slot for the people’s panels that are being committed to in the next session. Finally, the report recommends changes to the standing orders to introduce a hosting role to allow for the sharing of knowledge and expertise between committees. That will enable a committee to invite members of another committee to attend and participate in the committee’s meetings and to have enhanced rights to access the private sessions and meeting papers but not the right to vote at that committee.”
“In the evidence that we took for our report, we picked up that there are sometimes difficulties in the expectations that are placed on members. However, it is interesting to note that, in standing orders, the bureau is asked to take into account individual members’ interests in serving on committees. That has perhaps been celebrated in its absence more than it has been taken forward, and it is perhaps something that Parliament can look at in the new session. We also propose that the deadline for the introduction of members’ bills be brought forward. That has been discussed at great length over the past month in various debates in the chamber. The change would prevent what we have seen at the end of the current session, when a significant number of members’ bills have had to be pushed and forced through.”
“She and other members will be aware from the report that great concern was raised that pressure will be put on women, particularly but not exclusively in smaller parties, by an expectation that they will serve on committees that will be driven merely by the fact that they are women. There is concern that they may be persuaded to sit on more than one or two committees in order to fulfil the rule. However, we discussed the matter at a number of meetings and I have confidence that the wording that we propose will reflect the reality and prevent that situation from occurring. If it did occur, it would be beholden on not just the committee or those who sit in the Presiding Officer’s chair but the Parliament as a whole to look at it immediately.”
“As Martin Whitfield knows, we support the majority of the proposed changes, but I raise a specific concern about proposed new rule 6.3.4A, which states that the Parliamentary Bureau must ensure that a committee’s members are not all of the same sex. Does he accept that that rule will inevitably result in some women being pressured to join more committees than men and working harder for the same MSP salary? Does he think that that will be in line with equal pay laws? Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for the intervention from Sue Webber, who was a member of the committee when we discussed the matter.”
“However, it is important to note that, if a site does require an environmental impact assessment, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be consulted at the planning stage on any potential environmental impacts. I go back to what I said in my earlier answer to Sarah Boyack, which is that all local authorities should look at such proposals and work out what they can co-locate in order to maximise the possible benefits of data centres. Sheriffhall Junction 4.”
“The cabinet secretary has outlined some of the safeguards in the current regulatory framework. A massive data centre proposed in Edinburgh would be similar in size to—and occupy as much land as—the entire ground at Murrayfield stadium. Will the Scottish Government make representations to ensure that a full environmental impact assessment is carried out? That is what communities are calling for, considering the planned diesel backup generators, the impact on air quality and the location of the site on greenbelt land within the Gogar special landscape area. Gillian Martin: Sue Webber will know that I cannot comment on planning applications.”
“As I said when the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee met to debate the instrument a few weeks ago, the rest of the United Kingdom has not expanded prisoner voting to the same extent that the SNP has done in Scotland. I want to make absolutely crystal clear what we are debating. We are considering enfranchising criminals who are considered to be so dangerous that they must be detained in a hospital for their own good rather than serve their sentence in prison. In some circumstances, they will have committed serious offences and, rightly, will be detained due to the risk that they present to society, yet the Scottish Government thinks that it is appropriate to give them the right to vote.”
“When the Scottish National Party Government first allowed some prisoners to vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections in 2020, we warned that that would set a dangerous precedent, with an increasing number of offenders being allowed to vote over time. Sure enough, in the dying days of this parliamentary session, the Scottish Government is trying to sneak through a policy that would allow convicted criminals who are detained on mental health grounds to vote in the election in May. The Scottish Government is incorrect in claiming that we need to expand prisoner voting in order to be compliant with the European convention on human rights.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact of its local government funding settlement on the condition of roads across the Lothian region, in light of the City of Edinburgh Council, for example, facing an £86 million repair backlog. (S6O-05658)”
“There were many familiar names in that document, including those of clinicians that I have worked with for decades, ex-presidents of the royal colleges in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and consultants and medical directors from Aberdeen to Wishaw. As we reach the end of this long and emotional debate, there are simple questions that we must ask ourselves before we vote. Can coercion always be detected? Are the safeguards fully defined and determined by the Parliament? Will the legislation avoid fundamentally changing expectations in the NHS? Ultimately, the doctor- patient relationship will change for ever. If we cannot answer those questions with a yes, with complete confidence, our responsibility as members of the Scottish Parliament is clear. We must vote no. 20:47”
“We are legislating in one of the most sensitive areas of human life. Any uncertainty about how core safeguards will ultimately be defined is a serious concern. Throughout stages 2 and 3, I proposed amendments that were intended to strengthen the bill. Those debates did not provide reassurance for me—they confirmed that important gaps remain. I also remain concerned about how an assisted dying service would sit within the NHS. If such a service were ever legalised, it must never become an expectation placed on patients or clinicians, yet the structure of the bill risks embedding it as a normal part of NHS provision. I received a letter from 370 healthcare professionals across Scotland.”
“They may not recognise that pressure until they have had the time and space to reflect on their circumstances. The process set out in the bill does not allow for that depth of reflection. In legislation of such gravity, where the consequence is irreversible, even a small risk must weigh heavily on us. I have been troubled by the reliance on the section 104 order to determine key safeguards and by matters such as conscientious objection, and the training and qualifications required of medical professionals. Those are not technical or minor details; they are fundamental protections. Yet we are being asked to pass legislation knowing that those aspects and safeguards will be developed later through secondary legislation, subject to limited scrutiny and not shaped directly by the Parliament.”
“The real question that is before us tonight is whether those principles can be translated safely into the bill that sits in front of us. Having studied the safeguards that are proposed in the bill and listened closely to the debates throughout its passage, I have come to the conclusion that the bill does not provide that certainty. My greatest concern is the risk of coercion. Amendments have been made in good faith to strengthen the safeguards, and I recognise the effort that colleagues have put in to that work, but I remain unconvinced that coercion can be reliably detected in every case. Experts have highlighted how subtle and deeply embedded that pressure can be. In situations of domestic abuse, for example, people often come to see the world through the perspective of the person who is exerting control over them.”
“This evening’s debate has been deeply emotional. Many members have spoken about the deaths of loved ones and how those experiences have shaped their views on assisted dying. I begin by acknowledging that sincerity. None of us comes to the issue lightly, and I do not question the compassion or integrity of those who will vote differently from me this evening. When I entered Parliament, I instinctively shared many of the same instincts that lead people to support the principle of assisted dying. Two motivations have come through clearly from members across the chamber. The first is the desire to reduce unnecessary suffering and the second is the desire to respect and protect individual autonomy. Those are humane values, and they are values that we all share. They are not the dividing line in this debate.”
“Explicitly including such guidance in the definition of “lawful assistance” would ensure that lawful assistance aligned with not only the letter of the act but the administrative and practical expectations that would accompany its implementation. Amendment 237 would play a vital role in preventing individuals from inadvertently falling outside the law as a result of misunderstanding, and it should be supported by members across the chamber. The Presiding Officer: I call”
“It would ensure that those involved in the assisted dying process—especially medical practitioners, carers and others who may support an individual— had a clear understanding of the boundaries of lawful behaviour. The amendment seeks to define “lawful assistance” as “assistance provided in full compliance with all the provisions of this Act”, which includes adherence to the procedural steps that are required for making declarations and assessments under sections 6 to 8. In seeking to incorporate the reporting and record-keeping duties that are set out elsewhere in the bill, it would ensure that actions would be supported by transparent documentation. In addition, amendment 237 seeks to recognise the role of guidance that is issued by the Scottish ministers.”
“As I have said before, I respect that, but whatever view we take on the principle, we should at least agree that the law that we pass must be clear, careful and precise. Amendment 236 would provide that clarity. By ensuring that assistance did not become something else, it would keep the legal boundary where Parliament intends it to be. It would help ensure that the law that we pass today would not leave confusion for those who must live with its consequences tomorrow. For legislation of such gravity, that clarity is not excessive—it is essential. I now turn to amendment 237, in the name of Fergus Ewing. As I have said, these are his remarks. Amendment 237 seeks to provide greater clarity on the meaning of “lawful assistance” in the bill.”
“The public must be confident that Parliament has not created a pathway that quietly shifts from assistance to the direct administration of death. Again, it is incumbent on us to make that clear. Assistance must never quietly become something more, and amendment 236 seeks to ensure that the distinction remains clear and firmly anchored in law. It would protect vulnerable individuals by making it clear that the final act could not be transferred to another person. The amendment would also protect medical professionals, because no doctor should ever be left uncertain as to whether a particular action crossed the line into conduct that the criminal law still prohibits. Members across the chamber will approach the wider question of assisted dying from different convictions.”
“At the moment, it is not, so amendment 236 sets out plainly that “nothing in this Act permits any person to carry out an act which directly causes the death of another person.” The amendment seeks to define assistance narrowly, limiting it to “preparatory or facilitative acts”, and to make it clear that if someone administers a substance, operates a device or performs any act that directly brings about death, that conduct remains subject to criminal law. That matters not only for legal clarity but for public confidence. Doctors who find themselves working within that framework must know exactly where the legal boundary lies—and it is our duty to make that clear. Families must understand what the law permits and what it does not—and, again, it is our duty in this Parliament to make that clear.”
“In other countries where similar laws exist, the question has often arisen about where the boundary lies between assisted dying and euthanasia. They are not the same thing. Assisted dying involves a person carrying out the final act themselves, whereas euthanasia involves another person administering the means of death. If the Parliament is to legislate in this area, that boundary must be unmistakably clear.”
“We all have our personal stories to bring to the bill, and I am grateful to those who are sharing them. Group 13 brings us to the most important legal boundary in the bill. Sue Webber is right to point out that there is a fudging of the line between lawful assistance and the direct causing of another person’s death. Amendment 236 is intended to make that boundary clear. It would not change the bill’s overall purpose; rather, it would ensure that the limits of the law were understood by clinicians, families and the public. At the heart of the amendment is a simple principle. Although the bill permits assistance to a terminally ill adult who has chosen that path, nothing in it should authorise an act in which another person directly causes that individual’s death. That distinction matters.”
“Its silence on failed attempts exposes an unacceptable and serious flaw. I move amendment 108. The Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to speak to amendment 236, and also to amendment 237, in the name of Fergus Ewing. Stephen Kerr: I will present my remarks as two distinct sets of remarks, because one is offered on behalf of Fergus Ewing, who cannot be here. Before I do so, though, I want to take a few seconds to thank colleagues for the way in which our proceedings have been conducted today. I am grateful for the respectful way in which we have been able to present views that we feel very passionately about. It is really good, and I especially thank Edward Mountain, Bob Doris and Daniel Johnson for the personal accounts that they gave in the previous group of amendments.”
“Doctors and carers could be left uncertain about their legal position in a situation in which a patient survived an initial attempt, and patients themselves might be exposed to risk, because the law offers no road map for managing a failed attempt. It is a glaring example of how the bill, as drafted, is bad law. Legal protections must be precise, predictable and complete, especially in legislation authorising assistance in ending life. The fact that these amendments are necessary at all underscores the bill’s fundamental weakness. Instead of offering a coherent, safe and accountable framework, the bill leaves critical questions unanswered, creating both legal ambiguity and practical danger. On that measure, the bill fails. It does not provide clarity, it does not protect professionals and, more important, it does not safeguard patients.”
“Amendment 108 would clarify that section 19(3) would apply only to assistance that was connected to the person’s original lawful request. It would explicitly exclude protection for any actions that were taken to complete a death once the initial attempt had begun. In other words, it would draw a line between lawful assistance and further intervention beyond the original request. Even if my amendments are agreed to, the need for such clarification highlights the serious flaw in the bill. The current text fails to clearly define the scope of immunity, which could leave a potentially catastrophic gap.”
“There is a profound and dangerous omission in the bill: it is silent on what should happen if the lethal substance fails to end a person’s life. Section 19(3) offers immunity to those who assist a person in an attempt to end their own life in accordance with the legislation, but it provides no guidance on the limits of that protection. If a first attempt did not succeed, the law would be entirely unclear. Could a doctor intervene further without the risk of criminal liability, or would any subsequent action potentially be prosecutable? That is not a minor gap, and it would leave patients and healthcare professionals in legal and ethical uncertainty. My amendments 108 and 109 attempt to address the ambiguity by specifying the boundaries of lawful protection.”
“It has shaped modern medicine, contributed profoundly to global scientific knowledge and continues to train the clinicians, researchers and innovators on whom the future of healthcare will depend. I congratulate the organisers of Edinburgh medical school 300 for curating such a rich and forward-looking programme, and I wish all the staff, students and alumni every success as they celebrate that significant milestone. 13:11”
“The programme marking Edinburgh medical school 300 embraces that heritage while looking ahead. It features a series of lectures, exhibitions, interactive digital timelines and historical explorations that uncover newly documented stories from the school’s past. At the same time, cutting-edge research is still going on across life sciences, digital health, innovation and clinical medicine, reflecting the institution’s on-going contributions to global scientific progress. Community engagement is also central to the anniversary programme. Public events and festival-related activities give residents and visitors an opportunity to explore Edinburgh’s medical heritage and understand the medical school’s continuing economic and societal contribution. Edinburgh medical school’s impact over the past 300 years cannot be overstated.”
“Confronting the whole of that history is vital to understanding the evolution of medical ethics and the responsibility that accompanies scientific advancement. The university’s medical story has always been intertwined with Scotland’s healthcare system. From the founding of the royal infirmary in 1729 as one of the earliest teaching hospitals in the UK to the post-war development of the national health service, Edinburgh’s clinicians and researchers played central roles in shaping public health and clinical practice. That legacy continues today through world-class research at sites including the royal infirmary and the Western general, which remain key teaching centres for the medical school, although the medical school has moved out of the city centre to Little France.”
“All those courses were delivered in the iconic square tower, which made them even more memorable. I still remember the sense of vertigo in the lecture hall where I had my forensic medicine classes, which is where anatomy lectures used to take place many decades ago—perhaps I will make some remarks about Burke and Hare later on. Those courses exemplified Edinburgh’s unique ability to blend scientific rigour, clinical relevance and interdisciplinary thinking. As we mark 300 years, this anniversary gives us not only a reason to celebrate but an opportunity to reflect honestly on the past. We have not only exceptional achievement in our history but some challenging periods, such as the infamous Burke and Hare murders of 1828, which were driven by the intense demand for cadavers during the city’s rise as a global centre of anatomical teaching.”
“For me, as a student between 1990 and 1995—I hate to give away my age—that sense of continuity was ever present. Walking into the category‑A‑listed Teviot Place medical school building—which was designed by Sir Robert Rowand Anderson and built between 1876 and 1886 in the Italian renaissance style—was a reminder that we were entering a place shaped by generations of discovery. My studies included forensic medicine for lawyers, which was taught by Professor Busuttil, whose meticulous approach to medico‑legal evidence left a lasting impression. They also included medical microbiology, where the classes, lab work and tutorials made even the smallest organisms fascinating. However, members should still not ask me about Gram-positive and Gram- negative bacteria.”
“As a University of Edinburgh alumna, I am pleased to speak in this debate to recognise 300 years of medicine being formally taught at the university and celebrate the profound legacy of its renowned medical school. I thank Martin Whitfield for bringing the topic to the chamber for debate. Three centuries of medical scholarship is an extraordinary milestone. Established during the Scottish enlightenment in 1726, Edinburgh medical school quickly became one of the world’s leading centres of medical teaching and research, attracting students from across Europe and beyond. Its influence is global: graduates went on to found medical schools at Harvard University, Yale University, McGill University and the University of Sydney, among many others, which demonstrates the truly international reach of Edinburgh’s medical tradition.”
“However, although it is a step in the right direction, we believe that it does not go far enough. The fact that the minister, Jim Fairlie, had to appear before the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee twice to get the SSI passed demonstrates that. Furthermore, the SNP’s plan to remove free bus travel from passengers who commit antisocial behaviour on buses is soft touch and full of loopholes, and it does not guarantee that criminals will have their bus passes removed.”
“As members know, buses are central to Scotland’s transport network. Although most passengers just want to get on with their journey, it is clear to bus operators and other passengers that antisocial behaviour on our buses has been a growing problem for the past number of years. A small minority of disruptive passengers, whether they are aged under 22 or older, disrupt buses, commit verbal and physical assaults and put the safety of passengers and drivers at risk. We all remember the tragic death of Keith Rollinson in February 2024. However, only a few weeks ago, the First Minister was unable to answer whether Rollinson’s killer would have had his bus pass removed under the Scottish statutory instrument that we are voting on tonight. The Scottish Conservatives will support the SSI.”
“I am looking back at some evidence that I have seen from elsewhere. A report called “Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide” by the Health and Social Care Committee at Westminster notes: “The Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation at King’s College pointed to examples of findings from Canada that ‘palliative care resources were disproportionately consumed by MaiD requests, while non- MaiD patients had reduced access to palliative care’.” Does that sound fair to Mr Kerr? Stephen Kerr: It does not, and it creates the shades of grey that we should accept exist in the evidence that is available to us from other jurisdictions.”
“He took a newspaper headline and twisted it into an untrue personal attack. I clarify on the record that, when I talked about those who weaponise anti-renewables rhetoric, I was talking about Reform, but I was also talking about those who ape Reform. I was talking about people like Douglas Lumsden. People want us to work together. This is far too important for personal attacks. Douglas Lumsden: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask for clarification. At the end of the cabinet secretary’s contribution, she seemed to call me somebody from the far right. Will you clarify whether that is acceptable language for the cabinet secretary to be using against another member of the Parliament?”
“When I met community leaders from our climate action hub network in January, they were clear that, to maintain support for climate action, we must proudly describe the benefits that it offers. The majority of members in the chamber described those benefits in the debate, but I will rail against those who want to weaponise negative approaches to the need for climate action. That includes people who use negative scaremongering on renewables. People want us to work together to come up with solutions that will make our lives better and to get behind action that will create jobs, make our environment better and make our households and communities more resilient. People do not like hysterics, shouting and personal attacks that are bereft of ideas—that achieves nothing. Douglas Lumsden did that to me today, as he always does in the chamber.”
“I agree that the Scottish budget provided record funding of more than £5 billion for activities to support our climate goals, and we have the climate taxonomy that is associated with the budget. Indeed, the budget included new climate initiatives such as the levy on private jet use in Scotland. It is clear that there are many points of agreement that will strengthen the delivery of the plan, which brings me back to why we are here. I am crystal clear that the draft climate change plan must deliver a pathway for the Scottish Government to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions—not just for the Scottish Government but for Scotland—in a way that fairly and justly delivers on our aspirations to improve wellbeing and economic opportunities for the people of Scotland.”
“It also asked for the plan to signal investment opportunities to the private sector. That is a priority not just for me but for other cabinet secretaries. Indeed, the Deputy First Minister has been doing a great deal of work on that and on making sure that the investment portal includes climate opportunities. Edward Mountain: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Gillian Martin: Do I have any time, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is not an awful lot of time. Gillian Martin: Okay. I will keep going—I am sorry, convener. The committee also asked for more effective links from the plan to other Government actions, including the Scottish budget.”
“Of course, she is another person who will not be here in the next parliamentary session. Should I retain this position, I will be speaking to her successor about that critical work. The rural committee also called for regional land use partnerships to be placed on a firmer footing, and we agree on that. We are currently working on a support framework for partnerships to help our communities—including farmers, crofters and land managers—to agree and deliver their priorities for land use, including tree planting and peatland restoration. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee asked us to work closely with the UK Government on reserved areas such as vehicle licensing, public EV charging and electricity market reform. We are, we have been and we will continue to do so.”
“It has been made clear by many contributors to the debate that this is not just a whole-Government or whole-portfolio approach as it is. I am sitting here with the cabinet secretary for the area that will do most of the work in the climate change plan, which is transport, but the plan also cuts across housing, land use, health and, indeed, the economy. We have worked with the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute to describe and quantify the health benefits and the co-benefits much better. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee called for greater monitoring and evaluation, as quite a few committees did. Understanding our progress in delivering the climate change plan is a priority for me, and much of that work is already under way. Indeed, Mairi Gougeon is working on the agricultural reform programme.”
“He was one of the few members who mentioned the importance of peatlands and woodland creation, how that methodology is changing, how previous assumptions are changing and how the climate change plan must be agile and adaptive as technology and methodology improve and things happen in a global context. I will cover some of the committees’ recommendations—after all, this is a committee debate. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee called for more of the health benefits of climate action to be visible in the final plan. That is music to my ears. I remember, when I was the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in the previous session of Parliament, making that point to the then convener of the Health and Sport Committee, who challenged me by saying, “That is my job,” but no, it is not—it is all our jobs.”
“I have been trying to discuss taking away constraint payments and incentivising private wire arrangements for heat networks with her colleagues in London—watch this space. Mark Ruskell was critical, but he always had solutions and suggestions, which I very much appreciate. I also want to mention Paul McLennan’s very considerate contribution, in which he mentioned that climate hubs are critical in getting buy-in from communities. I appreciate the work that those hubs do, the correspondence that I had with them and the time that I spent with them talking about the climate change plan. I want to make special mention of Bob Doris’s contribution.”