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 2 of 9.
“We will stand up for Scottish workers, we will stand up for Scottish businesses, and we will stand up for a climate policy that is honest, affordable and fair. 17:12 Gillian Martin: With some exceptions, this has been a very constructive debate with some very good contributions. I want to pick out where people have been constructive. This might be the last climate change debate in which Sarah Boyack takes part, so, if I can be allowed the time, I want to wish her all the best for what comes next and say how much I have enjoyed working with her on this subject. We disagree on a few things, such as how we should do some things, but we both feel similarly about our portfolios and the importance of them. Sarah Boyack mentioned heat networks, which will be a big project for the next Parliament.”
“Mercedes Villalba: Will the member take an intervention? Sue Webber: I will not. Scotland’s emissions are already down by 50 per cent compared with the 1990 baseline. Progress has been made. The Scottish Conservatives would scrap the arbitrary 2045 target and replace it with a credible and affordable pathway that would protect oil and gas jobs, safeguard energy security, support technological innovation and keep bills as low as possible for consumers. We want to focus on the delivery of a transition that carries the public with it, rather than imposing severe lifestyle restrictions without consent. If climate policy loses public support, it will fail. If it undermines our economy, it will backfire. If it is built on shaky assumptions and opaque costings, it will certainly not endure. The Scottish Conservatives choose practical progress.”
“The industry body Offshore Energies UK has been clear that oil and gas still have a vital role to play alongside renewables in delivering energy security and net zero. Instead of backing the sector, the Government has presided over industrial decline. Let me be clear: despite what Mr Doris might have heard—he should listen to this—the Scottish Conservatives believe in protecting our environment. Mr Kerr said so earlier. We support a transition to cleaner energy, and we recognise the need to reduce emissions—not just those from politicians. However, we will not sign up to targets that cannot be delivered without hammering households and sacrificing jobs, and we will not endorse a plan that puts billions of pounds of costs into businesses while offering little clarity and less honesty.”
“I can attest to all those concerns being real. It is all wishful thinking. The human cost of that approach is already being felt. Scotland has lost three oil and gas jobs for every clean job that has been created over the past decade, and more than 13,000 jobs have disappeared in a single year. Bob Doris: I have been listening intently to Sue Webber. Could she please tell me something that she likes about the plan? Sue Webber: We will see whether I will come to that in the two minutes that I have left. I will leave Bob Doris eagerly anticipating from his sedentary position whether I will do so, but I thank him for asking. Communities in the north-east are being hollowed out while ministers talk about a just transition.”
“The Parliament has been asked to sign off a strategy without knowing the price tag—we have all seen that before. The Government’s previous target to cut emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 was abandoned after it became clear that that was not credible. Now, we have been told to have confidence again. Confidence in what? In a plan that was published late? In proposals that are not fully costed? In a strategy that places almost twice the reliance on negative emissions technologies as the CCC’s balanced pathway—technologies that even the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has described as largely “untested at scale” and a “significant delivery risk”? Should we have confidence in electric vehicle uptake doing the heavy lifting, despite the serious concerns that we have heard about affordability, charging infrastructure and grid capacity?”
“Those are massive numbers. Businesses alone face £8.5 billion in costs by 2040. Who will pay? Gillian Martin: Does Sue Webber not agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility report that estimates that unchecked climate change could cost up to 8 per cent of UK GDP? Sue Webber: Consumers at home do not care much about 8 per cent of GDP when they face bills that will cripple their household incomes. The cabinet secretary has still not answered the question that I asked: who will pay? Officials have admitted that they cannot predict whether the burden will fall on taxpayers, households or industry. That is not a plan. The Government is gambling with other people’s money. Even Audit Scotland has warned that the costs lack transparency and that there is no clear breakdown of who pays, when they pay or how their investment will be funded.”
“There also needs to be a reduction of 2 million in the number of cattle and sheep, a cut of a fifth in meat consumption—I think that I might have a ribeye tonight—and a nearly tenfold increase in land use for woodland. Those are not marginal adjustments. They are profound changes to how people heat their homes, travel to work, run their farms and feed their families. However, the Government refuses to level with the public about the scale of the disruption that is involved or the bill that will come with it. The CCC estimates the net cost of reaching net zero at £750 million per year between 2025 and 2050, with costs peaking before benefits are realised. The Government’s draft climate change plan admits that the Scottish economy will be £6.1 billion worse off by 2030 and £4.8 billion down by 2040, even after projected savings.”
“The debate has exposed a fundamental divide in the Parliament: on one side sits the left-wing Holyrood consensus that is determined to push ahead with arbitrary 2045 net zero targets regardless of the cost to families, businesses and Scotland’s vital oil and gas sector; and, on the other side, sit most of the Scottish Conservatives, who are clear that climate action must be credible, affordable and deliverable. Let us start with the facts. The Scottish Government’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, have been explicit about what meeting the 2045 target entails. By 2030, 35,000 heat pumps have to be installed every year and, by 2035, 60 per cent of cars and vans have to be electric.”
“If we do not take that approach, it will mean massive missed opportunities and social challenges in tackling the impact of the climate emergency on Scotland. Let us get on with it and have a proper discussion early doors. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has been listening not just today but for the past however many weeks and months, because there are big opportunities and we need to seize them together. 17:06”
“We did not talk about it, but there are social justice and health issues with heating: an older person needs to have their home at 19°C at least and, if a person has a disability, that is something that they urgently need to be addressed. There is a lot of work that can be done. I talk about the local issue. Members should think of the local jobs and supply chains if we have a programme and a plan to heat our homes effectively and affordably. We have the warm homes plan in the UK, so let us learn from that. I will wind up my speech. We need to make the plan an opportunity. We need joined-up thinking across Government and we need to ensure that, in the next session, the climate change plan is not just a job for one of the Cabinet members but a job for every member of the Government.”
“Following negotiation with the then Deputy First Minister, I sneaked into that act an amendment that all new homes had to have some form of renewables. That has happened and there was constructive work with the building sector. A lot of it is solar but it is not exclusively so. However, we are not seeing work to decarbonise existing homes and buildings. Kevin Stewart and Bob Doris made points about this. Tenements are critical. In the next session of the Parliament, we need more than a nice-to-have on tenements. We need to think about how we improve the quality of tenements and consider the opportunities for affordable heating—that means heating that people can afford to have on.”
“I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Edinburgh Community Solar Co- operative. I have seen the impact that it has had on buildings that are owned by the City of Edinburgh Council but into which the council has not had to put any investment, because that was done by the co-operative, and it has made money. We should be doing that everywhere, but on a local basis. I also used to work with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations—again, I declare an interest—where I saw the benefits of solar heat and solar power. We always talk about solar power, but the technology can be used to heat water in our homes. We need a joined-up approach. We have done a lot with new housing. Patrick Harvie referred to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.”
“When it comes to transport, there are huge opportunities for electrifying rail, cars, buses and other vehicles. We also have opportunities around heat. We need to think through the local supply chains. That need for joined-up action has been referred to in different ways. We need to think about how we can better use our power near to where it is produced. That is a huge opportunity. It was interesting to hear Paul McLennan’s speech, as a big discussion is happening in the Lothians about the potential for the Berwick Bank wind farm to bring in lots of new electricity. Why do we not use that where it is produced? Why do we not establish heat networks both to use that electricity and as a storage process? We need joined-up thinking. I mentioned solar energy in my opening comments.”
“The financial aspects of the climate change plan reveal one of the most concerning gaps. Committees are always told that financial space is very tight, but we need to ensure that there are actual plans and incentives and that every policy has a fully costed financial plan behind it. We need to see that in the final plan. We also need better monitoring and evaluation. The Climate Change Committee has been explicit that the final plan must include a complete monitoring and evaluation framework with annual sectoral pathways and indicators of progress. That needs to be monitored not just by one committee of this Parliament but by a range of committees, because one committee will never be responsible for everything that is in the climate change plan— everyone must be involved in it. We also need joined-up thinking and action.”
“It will be me this time. Sarah Boyack: Sorry—it will not be from that member, then. The draft energy strategy was published in January 2023, and we are still waiting for the final version. Just last month, the Just Transition Commission published its report, “No Time to Lose”. It tells us that we need to be working together and to be making the maximum use of the powers that the Scottish Government has. Mark Ruskell made that point, and I totally agree with it. The report also says that we need a place-based approach for every community. That means that communities and local authorities must have the capacity and the support to deliver in practice. We also need clarity so that sectors can invest, businesses can plan and workers can prepare for the future.”
“On Arran, the MV Alfred has been chartered at a cost that has already reached £35 million, which is more than double what it cost Pentland Ferries to build the vessel.”
“Communities such as Dunoon and Ardrossan have faced repeated disruption, yet many local businesses are not eligible for compensation under the islands business resilience fund, despite clearly being affected. That is unfair and must be rectified. In what I would describe as a very timely announcement yesterday, the Government has also set out its intention to purchase Ardrossan harbour. If that deal proceeds, ministers must provide regular updates on when the purchase will be completed and when the long-overdue upgrade will be delivered, because communities deserve clarity and certainty, not continued speculation. In Ardrossan, the MV Caledonian Isles was out of action for 20 months for repairs costing nearly £12 million.”
“Taxpayers deserve to know how that was allowed to happen and how ministers will ensure that it never happens again. Yesterday, the Scottish Government announced four direct awards to Ferguson Marine, a programme to upgrade the yard and an intention to return it to the private sector. If that is the strategy, ministers must clearly outline how those new vessels will be delivered on time and on budget. Warm words and press releases will not rebuild public trust. Meanwhile, CalMac has spent more than £260 million over 11 years maintaining an ageing fleet. In 2024-25 alone, upkeep costs reached £50.1 million—double what they were just two years earlier. The average age of a CalMac lifeline vessel is now more than 25 years. In 1974, the typical ferry was just 13 years old. That is not progress; it is managed decline.”
“The MV Glen Sannox finally entered service in January 2025, and it has already required multiple periods of repair. The MV Glen Rosa has been delayed again, with delivery pushed back to the very end of 2026. The most recent delay alone has added another £12.5 million to the cost of completing the vessels, with the total cost since nationalisation of the yard now standing at £197.5 million. What do islanders hear from ministers? They hear that the Government is carefully assessing the information that is provided, and that the situation is a source of great frustration. However, frustration is not accountability, and careful assessment is not delivery. Not one minister has resigned or taken responsibility. That is why my amendment explicitly notes that the combined cost of the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa has reached almost £500 million.”
“I am pleased to speak in support of the motion that was lodged by Jamie Greene on fixing Scotland’s ferry fiasco. For too long, Scotland’s islands and coastal communities have been treated as an afterthought by the SNP Government. Lifeline ferries are not a luxury or a seasonal extra—they are essential infrastructure. They are the arteries that keep island and coastal economies alive, by connecting people to work, education, healthcare and family. However, Scotland’s ferry fiasco has been going on since 2014. The two vessels at the heart of the scandal—the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Glen Rosa—were originally budgeted to cost £97 million. Their combined cost has now reached almost £500 million, and both were meant to be in service in 2018-19. Instead, islanders have endured years of delay, disruption and uncertainty.”
“I note that Ferguson Marine formally advised the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that the target delivery date for the MV Glen Rosa is now quarter 4 of 2026, and that it provided additional information on the cost to complete the vessel, which had increased to £192 million. I reassure Sue Webber that that engagement happens regularly, but I have often heard it said that, with an additional pipeline of work, the incentive to complete the ship to that schedule increases significantly.”
“Secondly, given the long-standing issues with the construction of the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Glen Rosa at Ferguson Marine, what guarantees has the Deputy First Minister had from the yard that the four new vessels will be delivered on time and on budget? Kate Forbes: I engage very regularly with the chief executive, largely, and the chair of Ferguson Marine about the Glen Rosa. I have said to the Parliament before that the priority is to deliver that vessel. Sue Webber will be aware that, with the yard having an additional pipeline of work, there is an even stronger incentive to complete the Glen Rosa on time, because further work is coming.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the announcement that the Scottish Government intends to return Ferguson Marine to the private sector “when the time is right”. Securing international contracts is the best way to ensure that shipbuilding remains on the Clyde. That being said, while the yard remains in public hands, it should be expected that it will provide value for money for taxpayers and deliver for our island and coastal communities. What engagement has the Deputy First Minister had with the board of Ferguson Marine on the MV Glen Rosa? Does she envisage any delays and cost increases before the latest promised delivery date for the vessel, which is the end of this year?”
“The funding in the ferries and ports line in the spending review, which, the member will notice, has been substantially increased compared to previous years, includes the investment for Ardrossan to take place. The member says that the purchase of Ardrossan has been planned and promised for years. That is not the case—I announced it to Parliament barely a year ago. I have been pursuing a solution with our partners Transport Scotland, CMAL and Peel Ports that will unlock the vital investment that will allow that major development. I am pleased that the member welcomes that decision.”
“With the announcement that the charter for the MV Alfred will be extended yet again, does the cabinet secretary think that that is value for money, considering that taxpayers have spent more money to hire that ferry than it cost Pentland to build it? The Presiding Officer: All questions should go through the chair, please. Fiona Hyslop: It is vitally important that we provide on-going resilience where possible. The deployments that CalMac makes and the investment that has been made in the MV Alfred are necessary to do so. I said in my statement that the MV Glen Sannox will return to service in the next few days. The budget provides for the purchase of Ardrossan this financial year as well as funding to help with the initial works.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement. I welcome her remarks regarding community involvement with decision making and on the investment in Port Ellen, which is vital for whisky distilleries on Islay, which were grateful for that. I recognise the commercial sensitivity regarding the purchase of the port of Ardrossan, but residents of the town of Ardrossan and businesses on Arran were promised that years ago. Can the cabinet secretary provide timelines for when the Scottish Government expects the harbour to be upgraded? How much has been budgeted for that? I am also quite interested in what is not in your statement, cabinet secretary. Could we get an update on the MV Glen Rosa, and could you provide more details on when the MV Glen Sannox is expected to return to full service and not go in for yet more repairs?”
“We will continue to argue for the right to recovery, including access to residential rehabilitation for those who need it who are in custody and on release. Without treatment, stability and proper support, the cycle of addiction, crime and custody will never be broken. The committee’s inquiry should be a wake-up call. Ministers must stop pretending that the crisis is under control. They must restore order in prisons, properly resource staff, clamp down on supply and, crucially, guarantee access to treatment that actually works. Prisons should not be places where addiction festers; they should be places where lives turn around. Until the Government understands that, the drugs crisis inside and outside prison walls will continue on its watch. Enough excuses—the Government must start delivering recovery. 16:43”
“They announce pathways to rehab but cannot say whether people recover. Since 2022, just 48 people have completed a 12-week residential rehab placement through the prison to rehab protocol. That is not a solution; it is tokenism. The Government is obsessed with managing addiction, not ending it. We see that in our communities, and now we see it in our prisons. Instead of expanding access to meaningful, structured rehabilitation, the SNP has allowed prisons to become holding pens for people with complex addictions, releasing them back into society no safer, no healthier and no more hopeful than they were when they entered. That is failing victims; it is failing communities; and it is failing prisoners. The Scottish Conservatives believe in something different. We believe that recovery, not just survival, must be the goal.”
“Is it any wonder that deaths in custody are soaring? There have been 64 deaths in Scottish prisons in a single year, which is a 60 per cent increase. Researchers have identified repeated, preventable failures, such as missed cell checks, health concerns being dismissed as drug seeking, and mental health crises being ignored until it is far too late. It is not just about drugs; it is about control. Overcrowding and staff shortages have allowed the prison drugs market to adapt faster than the system that is meant to stop it. Potent synthetic drugs such as spice are driving violence, psychosis and medical emergencies, which is putting prisoners and staff at serious risk. While the chaos unfolds, SNP ministers talk about compassion but deliver complacency. They fund programmes but do not track outcomes.”
“One in four say that their drug use started or increased inside prison, and the number of drone drops has exploded, rising from just six incidents to more than 70 in three years. Nearly 15,000 drug recoveries have been recorded. That is not harm reduction; it is institutional failure. That breeding ground, in combination with a lack of vital rehabilitation services, means that prisoners are not set up properly for release and are not given the best chance at kickstarting their new life. Instead, they are more likely to relapse and reoffend as the right support is not available. Alcohol misuse is being treated as an afterthought. Around 5,000 people enter custody every year with an alcohol dependency yet, last year, only 167 were referred for treatment. That is not a gap in provision; it is a collapse in basic care.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer—I thought that you had forgotten about me. Under the SNP, Scotland’s prisons have become warehouses for addiction. The committee’s inquiry lays bare a system that is overcrowded, understaffed and completely out of control. Drugs are rife, alcohol dependency is ignored, and lives are being lost behind bars at an alarming rate. Angela Constance: Will Ms Webber give way? Sue Webber: If Ms Constance does not mind, I will not. I am a last-minute addition to the speakers list. Perhaps I will give way as I get through my speech; I am only four lines into it. Let us be clear: prison should be a place of punishment, but it must also be a place of recovery. Right now, it is neither. The facts are damning. More than a third of prisoners now admit to using illegal drugs in custody.”
“I know that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity also engages on the wider issue. Bus operators can operate conditions of carriage. We already operate the travel safe initiative in our train stations, and there is interest in whether that could be applied to buses or bus stations. Buses are set up differently, on a deregulated basis, which means that the approach needs to be more co-operative, particularly with the bus companies. However, if there is criminal behaviour, that needs to involve the police. Wull Muir Wind Farm (Court of Session Ruling) 7.”
“Figures that were released last year revealed that there were up to nine incidents of antisocial behaviour on Lothian Buses in Edinburgh a day, with smashed windows and assaults on drivers the most predominant incidents. In addition to the suspension of concessionary bus travel, which the cabinet secretary mentioned in her original response, can you outline how you and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs are working with Police Scotland and the bus companies to ensure that such incidents are quickly responded to and that offenders feel the full force of the law? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members should speak through the chair. Fiona Hyslop: The member will appreciate the difference between antisocial behaviour and criminal behaviour. Those are operational matters for the police, who work closely with our bus companies.”
“The Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill is a missed opportunity. However, we in the Scottish Conservatives have long campaigned for a better system of sanctions that will meet public expectations and enhance the standing of this Parliament, and we will continue to do so. 17:45”
“That clear disparity is uncomfortable for members on the Conservative benches. It is deeply regrettable that my amendments that would have allowed the removal of any MSP who was found guilty by the courts and given either a custodial sentence or a community sentence were also rejected. SNP and Green members have found very different difficulties with the bill and I understand that, ultimately, their votes will kill it. To be clear, Presiding Officer, I note that our problem with the bill is that it is not tough enough. It would fail to achieve what the public expect and what this Parliament needs. It would fail to turf out the likes of Derek Mackay. For those reasons, with a good deal of regret, my party is unable to support the bill and we will abstain in the vote this evening.”
“Sue Webber: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I sought to deliver what the public expected of me—what was in the Scottish Conservatives’ manifesto. The bill is not that. As things stand, we risk creating an inconsistent act that would do little to restore public faith in this Parliament, which I believe is badly eroding every day. It is not satisfactory that an MSP could be sentenced to anything up to a year in prison, yet not face removal by any means. The bill would allow an MSP who was in prison for an extremely serious offence to continue picking up a large salary at the taxpayer’s expense. I hardly need to add that the problem is being made worse by the SNP’s soft-touch justice system. At the same time, an MSP who was suspended by this Parliament for 10 days would be subject to the recall mechanism with no appeal.”
“However, that simple provision is not part of the bill. The bill does not contain what we pledged and it is not Mackay’s law. It is not what this Parliament badly needs. I am bitterly disappointed that my amendments at stage 3 were not agreed to this afternoon. They would have left us with a still imperfect yet workable bill. Kevin Stewart: Ms Webber must realise that, if her amendments had been agreed to this afternoon, they would have wrecked the bill completely and utterly and would have set back the next Parliament in doing this absolutely right. We have to ensure that human rights are dealt with as part of this, but Ms Webber’s amendments would have run roughshod over that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Stewart, that was a very lengthy intervention again. Ms Webber, I will give you the time back.”
“The bill began life as a Scottish Conservative pledge. We proposed a Mackay’s law as long ago as 2021. The intention was to give people the ability to remove an absentee MSP: an elected representative who, without legitimate reason, simply withdrew from Parliament and ceased to do their job. There was a clear requirement for such a bill. Derek Mackay, the former finance secretary, did not attend Parliament or engage with it in any way after he was forced to resign in disgrace, yet he was paid about £100,000 during that period. Public anger and common sense demanded a Mackay’s law. The bill will not be that law, but that law is still very much required. Our original proposal was to recall MSPs for non-attendance, either in person or remotely, that exceeded 180 days, with appropriate exemptions and safeguards.”
“Amendments 42A, 42B and 42C would change the wording of amendment 42 to remove reference to the criminal offence ground.”
“If, in the next session, we had a similar number of recall petitions and polls, we could be talking about millions of pounds being spent at a time when fiscal resources remain tight. I know that there is hope across the chamber that we will never have to use the legislation, but we must ground ourselves in the reality that we might have to use it. That is why I propose to abolish the recall process for regional MSPs and instead move to a system of automatic removal when the parliamentary sanction ground or criminal offence ground is triggered. Amendment 42 is the substantive amendment in the group. It would establish a new process by which regional members would automatically be removed if they were sanctioned by Parliament for 10 sitting days or more, or if they were convicted of a criminal offence.”
“All the amendments in this group have been lodged by me and concern changes to the recall process for regional members. One of the key challenges of the bill is establishing a regional recall process that is fair, simple and cost effective. At stage 2, improvements were made to remove the two-step process for regional members, which was criticised in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s stage 1 report. However, I still believe that the process as laid out does not represent value for the taxpayer. The financial memorandum to the bill found that a regional poll could cost the taxpayer £1.3 million, compared to £0.3 million for a constituency petition and the subsequent by-election. In the United Kingdom Parliament, six recall petitions were triggered between 2018 and 2024.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what the education secretary’s position is on concerns that, in light of the national review timeline, victims of grooming gangs may have to wait up to 18 months before ministers decide whether to establish a full public inquiry. (S6O-05544)”
“They are watching what we choose to do today, and they will judge us not on our words about transparency but on whether we deliver it for once. By supporting the bill and my amendment today, while being frank about the reality of what remains to be done, we keep the pressure on the Scottish Government. We send a clear message that FOI reform cannot be allowed to drift into irrelevance, and we reaffirm that the public’s right to know must be strengthened, modernised and defended, both now and in the next parliamentary session. I move amendment S6M-20815.1, to insert at end: “, but, in so doing, highlights the time pressure in the current parliamentary session and the views in the stage 1 report, including that Freedom of Information reform should be addressed in the next parliamentary session.” 14:39”
“The truth is that, every time FOI reform is delayed, resisted or redirected into yet another holding pattern, it reinforces the perception that those in power are more interested in protecting themselves than in serving the public interest. People can see the Government dragging its heels. They can see the areas in which loopholes remain open and enforcement powers remain weak, and they can see when proactive publication is discussed but never delivered. They rightly ask why, if we believe in openness, we will not modernise the law that guarantees it. Let me be clear: this Parliament has a duty not to ministers or departments but to the people of Scotland. They are entitled to a system that is modern, transparent and future proofed.”
“We will do so because the principles are sound and because Scotland cannot afford more drift. However, supporting the principles does not erase our concerns, and we are deeply worried about the sheer length of time and the level of work that will be required to resolve the issues that were identified by the committee. Progress must be real and not symbolic. The public are watching the debate more closely than some in the chamber might realise. They demand transparency, not excuses. They expect us to strengthen their right to know, not to circle the wagons and shield the Scottish Government from scrutiny.”
“One wrote to me to say: “It feels like every time FOI comes up, Parliament asks for more time while the law gets older and weaker.” The frustration is real, and it reflects a wider public concern that delay looks a lot like protecting the Government from scrutiny. I have lodged an amendment that reflects the reality that is before us. It would mean that, if Parliament agreed to the principles of the bill, we would also recognise “the time pressure in the current parliamentary session and the views in the stage 1 report, including that Freedom of Information reform” might ultimately need to be addressed in the new parliamentary session. That is not backing away from reform; it is being honest about the scale of the task ahead. Let me be clear that the Scottish Conservatives will vote for the bill at stage 1.”
“She has done so because the Scottish Government has simply chosen not to. Although it is true that many elements of the bill need further refinement—that is a euphemism—the need for reform is not in dispute. It is urgent, overdue and undeniable. We, in the Conservatives, find ourselves between a rock and a hard place today. The stage 1 report sets out the substantial and complex work that would be required to make the bill fully workable, future proofed and comprehensive, and the time that is left in this parliamentary session is extremely tight. Some might call it legislative constipation. At the same time, constituents are watching.”
“The world has moved on, and Scotland’s FOI regime has not kept pace. What we have witnessed from the Scottish Government over recent years is a refusal to accept that reality. Ministers insist that the fundamentals are still fit for purpose, yet we heard the Information Commissioner describe the pace at which they are bringing new bodies under FOI as “glacial”. Stakeholders told us that the publication scheme is outdated and ineffective. Public functions remain exempt simply because they sit outside traditional structures. None of that is fit for purpose. Freedom of information is supposed to empower the public, not exhaust them. It should encourage transparency, not create barriers to it. I give credit to Katy Clark for taking on the work, because nobody else had any appetite to do so.”
“Freedom of information is not an abstract constitutional principle; it is the cornerstone of public trust in Scotland’s institutions, and it is how people understand what their Government is doing, how decisions are made and whether power is being exercised responsibly. However, despite clear and compelling evidence that our freedom of information framework is outdated and has been outpaced, the Scottish Government has consistently failed to modernise it. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee could not have been clearer: there is a need for FOI reform. The original 2002 act was designed for a totally different era— before digital comms, before arm’s-length organisation service delivery and before the complex landscape of publicly funded but not publicly listed bodies.”
“12:50 On resuming— Edinburgh South Community Football Club and Grass-roots Football”