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 3 of 9.
“It is the minister’s incompetence that has been at the very heart of the delay in introducing legislation to remove bus passes from those committing antisocial behaviour on buses. The Presiding Officer: On the point of order, Ms Webber. Sue Webber: Will the First Minister now take the opportunity to correct the record to reflect the reality of events? The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Webber. That is not a point of order, as members’ contributions are not a matter for the chair. The First Minister: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I just want to make it clear that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to change the Official Report of what I have said to Parliament today. The Presiding Officer: Those are not points of order. We will now conclude First Minister’s questions. 12:48 Meeting suspended.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In his response to questioning from Russell Findlay, the First Minister made remarks in relation to a meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on 27 January, when, apparently, the committee was presented with a code of conduct by the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, in relation to bus passes. However, the committee meeting in question was on 20 January. At that meeting, the minister took a unilateral decision to not share his code of conduct with the committee—nor did the minister press the motion on the Scottish statutory instrument before the committee. It was clear that the committee was not minded to support it.”
“I am pleased to say that procurement is progressing as it should be. Fife to Edinburgh Trains 7.”
“The proposed budget reduces the rail infrastructure improvement and rolling stock projects budget by 16.5 per cent. Will the cabinet secretary outline how that will impact the ability to procure new rolling stock and infrastructure improvements, particularly in relation to the procurement of new trains to replace ScotRail’s high-speed train fleet? Fiona Hyslop: It will have no impact whatsoever. That reduction is a result of the previous year’s extensive investment, particularly in East Kilbride electrification and construction of the Levenmouth rail line. That year saw a particularly high level of investment. As members can imagine, rail investment covers long periods and, in terms of the overall planning for rail, we are on target. In control period 7, £4.2 billion is being invested in our rail service, and a lot is happening.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in the current parliamentary session on preventing gender-based violence in relation to non-fatal strangulation. (S6O-05471)”
“Instead, it risks creating further instability and anxiety. It should be withdrawn and councils should be funded properly, so that they can protect essential services and deliver real relief for households. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Jamie Hepburn is the final speaker in the open debate. 16:44”
“However, taken together, the charges represent a shift away from transparent collective funding and towards piecemeal charging through which residents pay repeatedly, quietly and often without choice. That is what stealth taxes look like. They are harder to see than a single tax rise, but they are felt every day on the high streets and in households across Edinburgh. Central to that problem—and the cause of it—is the long-term underfunding of local government by the SNP. That has left councils facing impossible choices between cutting vital services and increasing local taxes. From social care to road maintenance, everything is under strain. We recognise that council tax is not a perfect system. However, any reform must be fair, proportionate and rooted in economic reality. The current consultation does not meet that test.”
“Let us not forget the punitive low-emission zones, with escalating penalties for entering certain parts of the city. A visitor levy—in effect, a tourist tax—is planned next. It has been pitched as a solution to every budget pressure in the capital. The tourist tax will pay for this; the tourist tax will pay for that. Everyone is queuing up for a bit of the cash. However, everyone would pay, not just the tourists. Someone from Linlithgow who stayed overnight in Edinburgh would pay—as would I, an Edinburgh resident, if I fancied a night in the city. I already live in the city and pay its council tax. Each charge may have a tangible benefit and a rationale to those who choose to introduce it.”
“The cost may appear small, with a typical resident permit costing between £80 and £100 a year, but to have to pay that simply to park outside their own home is ridiculous. Nevertheless, if they live in a controlled zone and they own a car, what other choice do they have? They have to pay to park. There are plans to introduce parking charges across towns in East Lothian, in a rather tone-deaf manner. Moreover, East Lothian Council wants to make its own staff exempt, which would be utterly unfair. Businesses face the same cumulative pressure, as business rates have driven their bills up higher still. If we add the rising parking costs, waste charges and enforcement penalties, it is clear why so many small businesses feel squeezed out of the city.”
“Those are never presented as council tax rises but together amount to a fundamental shift in who pays, how they pay and how often they pay. For example, until 2018, garden waste collection was free. However, the council then introduced a permit, initially at £25 a year. Today, that permit costs £45—an 80 per cent increase—which is paid on top of council tax. It was justified at the time, but around 70,000 to 77,000 households now pay that charge every year, and the service generates nearly £3 million annually and has generated close to £10 million in the past four years. Another example is parking charges. Controlled parking zones have spread across Edinburgh, whether residents want them or not. Residents who once parked outside their homes can no longer do so unless they pay the council for the pleasure.”
“The SNP proposals to shake up council tax in Scotland are yet another brutal raid on household finances, shifting even more pressure on to families and councils at a time when both are already under serious strain. Across Scotland, families face higher energy bills, rising food prices and increased mortgages and rents. Against that backdrop, the prospect of council tax rises, combined with additional local charges, fees and levies, is not only unwelcome but unfair. Taxpayers should not be treated as a cash cow to compensate for the nationalists’ repeated failures to manage the public finances. Over recent years, Edinburgh residents have seen a significant change in how the City of Edinburgh Council raises money, through a steady creep of new charges, permits, penalties and fees.”
“There is no time in hand, so any interventions will have to be absorbed into members’ agreed speaking allocations. I invite those members who have not yet pressed their request-to-speak button to do so if they wish to speak. 15:14”
“Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is concluding. Lorna Slater: I am sorry, but I must conclude. The revaluation that is being undertaken simply reflects increases to the rateable values of properties. It is a sound principle. As the relative wealth of a business increases through the effective inflation of property prices, so does its contribution. In practice, however, the NDR system disproportionately benefits the owners of premises and disadvantages their tenants. It lets big businesses off the hook and makes life difficult for small businesses. That needs fixing. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will now move to the open debate. I ask for back-bench speeches of up to four minutes.”
“In short, amendment 50 strengthens the bill without burdening it, it supports better decision making in my view, it respects institutional autonomy while reinforcing accountability, and it fundamentally gives Parliament the information that it needs to do its job properly. I will double down on my appreciation for the way in which the minister has engaged. I hope that colleagues across the chamber will support amendment 50, even though it has a rather mangled and interesting history, to give us a system that is somewhat more resilient and more transparent over time.”
“It is not about second-guessing operational decisions; it is about ensuring that risks are visible, that performance is measurable and that ministers and the Scottish Funding Council can be held to account in an informed way. That is why amendment 50 matters; it is why any amendment on reporting matters—because of the pressures that are already facing colleges, training providers and universities. None of the issues is hidden from the gaze of the Parliament or, indeed, the public. Financial sustainability in FE, HE, apprenticeships and training is not an abstract concern. Colleges Scotland, for example, has repeatedly highlighted its difficulties in managing money that has, in its words, been subject to at least “a 20% real terms cut” over the course of this parliamentary session.”
“I still do not think that it is much of a bill, but Ben Macpherson’s willingness to engage constructively and to have an open door to Opposition members in consideration of our amendments is to his credit as a minister. That deserves to be acknowledged. That, in my view, is the way to make good legislation. The bill will not be good legislation—I hate to disappoint the minister—but it will at least be an improvement on where it might have been had he not assumed office. If public bodies are to be trusted with billions of taxpayers’ pounds and with responsibility for shaping Scotland’s future workforce, Parliament is entitled to clear, regular and intelligible reporting on how well the system is holding up.”
“Transparency and accountability require us to have more information. Although I expect that agreeing to only my amendment is not entirely what Willie Rennie and Miles Briggs would like, it is something. This will damn Ben Macpherson’s career for ever, but I put on record my thanks to him for the way in which he has engaged with me on amendment 50. I began my remarks on my amendments today by saying that Ben Macpherson picked up a guddle of a bill. I still think that it is a guddle of a bill, but I do not doubt the sincerity of Ben Macpherson’s intentions and the seriousness with which he has gone about trying to make something out of the bill.”
“It is this: “If the state wishes to spend more, it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay—that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.” I think that members might have guessed who that was—Margaret Thatcher. It is absolutely the truth. It is axiomatic that the Government does not have any money of its own. It borrows money from the public or takes money from the pockets of the public. Is someone intervening to debate whether Margaret Thatcher said that? No, I do not think that they are. The reality is that it is important that there is transparency and accountability. There is precious little of that in the minds of ministers who come to this Parliament, introduce bills and generally address it.”
“I accept the arguments of my colleagues Miles Briggs and Willie Rennie, although we have at least got the Government to agree to some form of reporting, which is a form of progress in and of itself, because amendment 50 comes off the back of there being no required reporting mechanism in the bill. The fact is that the Scottish Funding Council will no longer just fund further education and higher education; it will also sit at the centre of apprenticeships and work-based learning, which is a major shift, and funding goes with that. Let me reclaim my credibility with a statement— if this was an open session, I would ask members whether they knew who said it, although I think that members on this side will know exactly who said it.”
“Can anyone remind me who voted for the budget? I think that it might have been Alex Cole-Hamilton of the Liberal Democrats who claimed that they had saved the planet because they had voted for the SNP budget. We are late in the fifth year of the sixth session of the Scottish Parliament, so I have lived long enough to hear an SNP minister recommend to SNP members that they vote for Stephen Kerr’s amendment. It was a great moment, I can tell you. However, he let the cat out of the bag by revealing that he had crafted the words on the back of my very skilful amendment and then honed them even further. I am losing credibility and losing friends, and I have well and truly fallen. However, there are serious points here. It is important that we have adequate reporting.”
“I hear what the minister has said but, because it is such a delicate matter that we have debated over the past few years, it is important to build in extra protections to ensure that it is clear that there is no chance that the Government overreaches and dictates how those institutions function. I understand what the minister has said about amendment 93 and will reflect on his observations when we come to vote, but I hope that he is persuaded by amendment 92 and the need for an extra trigger for the investigation of individual institutions. Stephen Kerr: I have no credibility left in this Parliament. I have been accused by a Liberal Democrat of all people of selling out to the SNP Government. I really have landed face first in the mud here, if a Liberal Democrat feels that they can accuse me of compromising with the nationalists.”
“Willie Rennie: This gets worse for Stephen Kerr, because the minister has now said, “To be fair to Stephen Kerr”— words that have never been said in the chamber before. To move on to amendment 92, there was much debate at stage 2 about the powers to scrutinise the financial sustainability of not only the whole sector but individual institutions following the events at the University of Dundee. There was a careful balance to ensure that we did not overreach or threaten the ONS classification of independent charitable organisations. Amendment 92 aims to bring in an extra-robust mechanism to ensure that, if we do launch an investigation into an individual institution such as the University of Dundee, it has to command a majority of the SFC board.”
“To be fair to Stephen Kerr, the wording for amendment 50 might have come in an email from my office, but we are grateful for the collaboration that he has shown. Although I appreciate the intentions of amendment 93 and what Universities Scotland has articulated around it, and I am grateful for the engagement with it, it is important to emphasise that our position is that amendment 50 is far broader in its reach than amendment 93, because amendment 93 is limited to the financial sustainability of further education, higher education, apprenticeships and research, whereas amendment 50 focuses not only on financial sustainability but on performance. That will enable a more meaningful picture of how all the providers are doing and how the funding is providing value for money.”
“Colleges are investigated and reviewed by Audit Scotland, but the minister seems to think that it is unacceptable for universities to be reviewed in the same way. It is important that Universities Scotland is the body that is asking for this. It wants that extra scrutiny and investigation into universities’ finances so that we can rebuild confidence in those institutions. It has a lot of respect for Audit Scotland and believes that it would add value to that financial sustainability investigation. I am sorry that Stephen Kerr has sold us short and is prepared to go along with the Government’s recommendations. Ben Macpherson: I thank Willie Rennie for taking the intervention. I have been listening carefully.”
“That is something that we should seek, especially after the couple of years that we have been through, particularly with the University of Dundee but also with other institutions that have had problems. There is already the ability for Audit Scotland to be called in to do investigations and reviews of university finances, but I think that that should be baked into the system. It could supplement the work that the SFC already does; it does not have to duplicate that work—it can add on top. Colleges are able to raise finance from other sources and they are involved in various other activities, similar to what universities do, so I do not quite see the difference between what universities provide and what colleges do.”
“Willie Rennie: For those who are not listening carefully to this, the minister has just set out why he is supporting Stephen Kerr, and Stephen Kerr why he is supporting the minister. Who would have thought that Stephen Kerr would be the modern-day patsy for the SNP? Perhaps this is a new Stephen Kerr that we have never seen before. He may return, I suspect, to his usual form. I congratulate Stephen Kerr on being able to persuade the minister on this front, because I think that my amendment is superior to his. Amendment 93 aims to bring in what is already in place for Scotland’s colleges, which is, in effect, for Audit Scotland to conduct an annual review of the financial sustainability of universities.”
“I understand that the intention behind amendment 92 is to avoid decisions being made unilaterally or without clear rationale in the SFC. Decisions at the SFC board are and should be made together, with every member sharing responsibility for the SFC’s actions. That is with regard to the 2005 act, not amendment 92. The practical details of how that operates are rightly for the SFC’s standing orders. I hope that I have done enough to convince Miles Briggs and Willie Rennie that Stephen Kerr’s amendment 50 is preferable to their respective amendments. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 89 and Willie Rennie not to move amendments 92 and 93, and if they do, I encourage members to vote against them. I ask members to support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 50 and my amendments 48 and 49.”
“Through my amendment 57, which will be considered in the next group, ministers will be able to set out the meaning of fair work principles for the purpose of the SFC’s functions by way of a direction to the SFC, which will allow that key policy to remain responsive and adaptable over time. 18:15 Willie Rennie’s amendment 92 would provide that the SFC may secure an independent examination into the financial sustainability or financial governance of a body only where the majority of the members of the SFC decide that that is necessary. With respect, that is not workable. The SFC is responsible for setting out its own rules and how it operates at board and committee level. The 2005 act makes provision for that.”
“Indeed, amendment 50 is broad enough to enable the SFC to commission an independent report as well as conduct its own. Amendments 48 and 49, in my name, tidy up some of the amendments that were agreed to at stage 2. Under amendment 48, the bill will use the term “fair work principles” instead of referring to the “Fair Work First principles”. Using that language maintains consistency with other Scottish legislation and enables adaption should the terminology around fair work change in the future. Fair work first is a specific Government policy that requires alignment with fair work through funding mechanisms, so it is inappropriate for the purposes of the bill.”
“Should it involve looking at the businesses of employers and other training providers, that would be going too far into private entities, and there would be a lack of underpinning powers to deliver that. Instead, amendment 50 requires the SFC to report on the performance of those delivering apprenticeships, as well as work-based learning and programmes of training for employment. That is important in ensuring quality from providers, rather than focusing on financial aspects. As I have said, we all agree on the importance of improved reporting, and I think that all the amendments in the group share some common goals. However, my view is that amendment 50 strikes the better balance and is more extensive. Some of the aims of amendment 93 might be attainable through the power of the Scottish ministers to give direction.”
“However, I prefer Stephen Kerr’s amendment 50 for a number of reasons, which I will set out. Amendment 93 would specifically require the report to consider the financial sustainability of “research among the post-16 education bodies” and of Scottish apprenticeships as a whole. Funding for research is not provided solely by the Scottish ministers; funding can and does come from UK sources, as well as through private and philanthropic routes, and some of that funding might be commercially sensitive. The SFC, rightly, does not have as much of an oversight role in that area, and I believe that that is how it should be. Moreover, it is very difficult to see how the financial sustainability of apprenticeships could meaningfully be assessed in that way.”
“Ben Macpherson: I will get straight to the point: I prefer Stephen Kerr’s amendment 50, which we worked on together, to Miles Briggs’s amendment 89, although I appreciate that the points that were raised at stage 2 encouraged the Government to think more about annual reporting. That allowed us to reach the point at which amendment 50 could be lodged. Amendment 50 provides for a broader and more flexible approach, and it is not tied to the financial year or the SFC’s annual report. Ministers can direct the SFC on the content of the report, which is already set up to include more of the SFC’s functions. Amendment 93, in the name of Willie Rennie, deals with a similar issue. He is right to highlight the importance of reporting on financial sustainability, and I understand the intent behind requiring an independent report.”
“Amendment 88 disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: Group 11 is on reporting, monitoring and recommendations by the council. Amendment 89, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 48, 49, 92, 93 and 50. Miles Briggs: I have misplaced my notes, so I will have to speak off the top of my head. Annual reporting was discussed at stage 2, and I lodged amendment 89 so that ministers could reconsider the matter at stage 3. In its report, the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommended strengthening the reporting provisions, and engagement with the minister has been helpful in that regard. A number of amendments were agreed to at stage 2, and I hope that the minister will support amendment 89 to provide more transparency. I hope that, collectively, we can take forward that theme through the bill. I move amendment 89.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 43, Against 73, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 87 disagreed to. Amendment 88 moved—[Miles Briggs]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. Sue Webber: Apologies, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Webber. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Webber. We will ensure that that is recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 45, Against 72, Abstentions 0.”
“The crime figures show that more crime tends to happen around distribution centres and on dense motorway networks such as those in the midlands—not necessarily here. However, we need to be vigilant, and it is important that the members have raised the issue. Household Waste and Recycling (Statutory Code of Practice) 2.”
“Logistics UK has highlighted the fact that we are facing a shortage of safe and high-quality truck stops, which are needed for driver dignity as well as for safety. In relation to the cabinet secretary’s discussions with the justice secretary, another big ask is to have a specific crime code for the recording of retail crime. Fiona Hyslop: Issues to do with the recording of crime codes and all the rest are a matter for the justice secretary and for Police Scotland. The member might want to contact them on that specific issue. On the member’s point about dignity and respect—and in relation to planning for the future energy needs of HGVs—it is important that we look at the framework for those stops. I know that the UK Government is doing likewise.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether reliance on local enforcement to tackle antisocial and dangerous e-scooter use is creating a postcode lottery in public safety, with some communities protected and others left exposed. (S6O-05375)”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can confirm that there is a lot of interest in asking questions, and we will get through all those questions only if members ask their questions and then listen to the responses.”
“I refer the member to the budget items at levels 2 and 3— she can find them in the budget documents and in the spending review; that is where the funding is. We have said clearly that when we get to the latter sections of the A9 in particular, the work will be funded by revenue transferred to capital. The full funding of the requirements for the 2035 completion has been set out; we have identified how we are going to fund that and we have set out the programme. That is very certain indeed, and I refer the member to the new plan so that she can have a look at the budget figures and identify that we have delivered and are delivering. The project has construction work happening now, and I encourage all members, if they want to have confidence that it is happening, to go and see the work on the A9.”
“If she had been listening to the statement, she would have heard that I stated that the project is within the original budget, so the costs are not increasing in the way that she describes. She implies that somehow the project is stalling. When was the last time Sue Webber actually drove the A9? Sue Webber: Oh my goodness! Fiona Hyslop: If she did, she would see the groundwork that is happening from Tomatin to Moy. How can the project be stalling when those works are happening at the north and the south ends of the A9 as we speak? As she will know—[Interruption.] Undoubtedly she has driven the A9 recently, which makes me wonder why she asked the question. With regard to the budget, the cabinet secretary, in her comments yesterday, referred to the one- year budget and the investment there.”
“Laura Hansler, from the A9 dual action group, said that yesterday’s announcement amounted to “keeping a project technically alive while ensuring it never meaningfully progresses.” Echoing the Scottish Conservatives’ proposals, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that “dualling ... must be accelerated, with clear routes for private capital to support.” Nothing in the statement today addresses either of those statements. How can anyone believe a word that the cabinet secretary says, when her party has, time and again, broken its promise on dualling this key road? Fiona Hyslop: I think that Sue Webber has selective memory when it comes to the financial constraints on capital projects that her party put on the Parliament and the Government.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. The dualling of the A9 was meant to be completed last year, but thanks to Scottish National Party incompetence, the can has been kicked down the undualled road to 2035 and taxpayers will now have to fork out almost £4 billion as a result of this catastrophic project mismanagement. As costs soar and progress stalls, more lives are still being lost on this lifeline road. Yesterday, Shona Robison boasted about the additional £200 million to complete the A9 but—to be frank—that is a drop in the ocean in comparison with what is actually needed.”
“Transport Scotland is working with rural and other communities on public transport commitments. However, I say to Sue Webber that, with tax cuts of £1 billion, there would be less money for bus services or for the expansion of bus routes anywhere; there would be less money and not more for those things. As I said at the beginning—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the cabinet secretary. Shona Robison: We cannot have Tory back benchers coming here asking for more money when their front-bench members would cut that money through £1 billion of unfunded tax cuts.”
“In the budget, there was an increase in the total spend on concessionary fares and bus services, yet we know that large parts of Scotland are very poorly served, if at all, by public transport. We are all aware of the recent decision taken by Stagecoach to significantly reduce its bus services in Dumfries and Galloway. In her statement, the cabinet secretary said that public services should be accessible where and when they are needed. If there are no buses available, a bus pass becomes absolutely worthless. If the SNP is serious about tackling inequalities across Scottish communities, it would surely have been wiser to use that money to fund a specific rural bus fund. Shona Robison: We want to ensure that public transport is available as far as possible to all communities in Scotland.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how many victims were notified in 2025 of the early release of an offender under any early release or temporary release scheme. (S6O-05334)”
“The really important thing is the service that is provided to the people of Arran in particular. We are in our annual overhaul period, when vessels are out being repaired and having their annual maintenance and investment. I have been clear that, until such time as we have the Glen Rosa, I want there to be a two-harbour operation, involving both Troon and Ardrossan, with the caveat that we are in the annual winter overhaul period. That is important not just for the people of Arran but for the communities of Troon and”
“Having a resilient CalMac fleet means ensuring that the new vessels are delivered on time. Despite the First Minister’s reassurance that the MV Glen Rosa would set sail before May’s election, we heard the dreadful news, before Christmas, that that lifeline vessel will not be delivered until the end of this year. The blame for this national scandal lies squarely with Scottish National Party ministers. Can the cabinet secretary outline what additional costs will be incurred by the delay and where the money will come from? What actions are ministers undertaking to ensure that the vessel is finally delivered? Fiona Hyslop: The statement about the time period for the MV Glen Rosa was made to Parliament in the regular updates at the end of December 2025, and I refer the member to those.”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it has decided not to take forward changes in relation to national speed limits on single carriageways. (S6T-02809)”