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 6 of 9.
“I am unsure whether this is the right bill to deal with that, but the issue could, perhaps, be considered. Elena Whitham: I understand the narrow nature of a member’s bill, which, as the committee also suggested, might not be the right vehicle. However, although there are provisions in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 to allow for the prosecution of coercive control when an animal is used in that way, there is no data to tell us how often that happens or how it is linked to dog theft. My question is about how those two things can ever possibly be linked. Siobhian Brown: I am happy to take that away and meet the member to discuss the issue further. It might be something that the expert advisory group could look at; perhaps we could raise the issue with the group and take it from there.”
“Prosecutors could still continue to ensure that dog theft can be addressed using common-law powers or theft in any given relevant case. Christine Grahame: It is unfortunate that I did not remark on section 1(2) in my speech. That is a tricky section. As a former divorce lawyer, I assure members that parties would agree on the division of household assets and bank accounts, but the biggest fight would be about the family pet. I agree with many of the things that Elena Whitham said, but I am just putting it into the pot that somebody might use the defence that somebody has been abusive so that they can keep the dog; sometimes, people will try anything to get what they want. Siobhian Brown: I am totally sympathetic to the concerns raised by Elena Whitham.”
“We know that the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 created the offence of engaging in a course of abusive behaviour against a partner or ex- partner, including behaviour that is directed towards pets or the removal of a pet from the partner or ex-partner when it is likely to cause the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm. Those provisions do not rely on the need for a specific offence of dog theft. Looking at the relationship defence, I note that the views were offered in the absence of a specific recommendation in the committee report. Given that common-law theft will continue to apply and can be used where necessary in situations in which the relationship defence might arise, we do not have a view on whether the relationship defence is appropriate.”
“Rhoda Grant asked about awareness raising. The Scottish Government will work with the member to publicise and raise awareness of the dog theft offence, should it become law. As I made clear to Mr Golden when I met him recently, the Scottish Government already has links with a wide range of stakeholders that have a strong interest in dog control and dog welfare policy matters. When I appeared before the committee, I spoke about the expert advisory group; it is now up and running and doing some great work. I hope to update the Parliament about that shortly, and I would be happy to get the group involved with awareness raising. I come to Elena Whitham’s comments about domestic abuse, and my response will also cover a bit of what Rhoda Grant mentioned. The issue was raised when I was before the committee.”
“It is estimated that early domestication took place between 10,000 and 30,000 years ago. Dogs are now members of just under 30 per cent of households in Scotland. I think that, given the content of members’ speeches today, we can all agree that dogs play a major role in the lives of our families and households, as well as in wider society, and that they are very much loved. We can also agree that there is much support for the bill. However, as the debate has also indicated, there are still important matters to be considered and I have to be clear about the Scottish Government’s position. I have listened carefully to members’ speeches and the issues that they have raised, and I am sure that Mr Golden will reflect on them ahead of stage 2, as will the Scottish Government. I will comment on some of the issues that have been raised.”
“We need to accept that the current law fails to consider the emotional value that a dog brings, and that we need to support owners and deter thieves. My colleague Maurice Golden’s bill addresses those issues by introducing a statutory offence. Scottish Conservatives will be delighted to support the bill as it moves forward from stage 1. 16:35 Siobhian Brown: We are a nation of animal lovers, and many of our households have or look after animals. Whether it is a goldfish or a horse, animals play a major role in our lives. Many of us do not even stop to think about patting a dog or a cat as they walk past us. However, it is dogs that go back the longest in our history. They are thought to be among the first animals that humans domesticated and brought into our lives and our homes.”
“I was not quite sure what was coming next from Mr Leonard. I thought that we were going to be in floods of tears as he was building up to his comments about the unconditional love that has come to him in his later life, now that he knows about the benefits of dog ownership and the importance of compassion and decency. I was getting my tissues out over here. We have had some great stories, including the one about Beetle and Ruby. The social media content and news of the campaign to find those two Border terriers made it up to Edinburgh, so I am very aware of that. We know that the bill has overwhelming support from the public and from all the organisations concerned, and it has been great to hear cross- party support from across the chamber this afternoon. I am delighted.”
“We also heard about the significance of providing for an aggravation in relation to the theft of an assistance dog, given the impact on the lives of people who rely on assistance dogs. It was good to hear from the convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee that dogs are more than property and how important it is to have a stand-alone offence of dog theft. I turn to Jamie Halcro Johnston’s comments. I am delighted to hear that Buster was rehomed after his award-winning appearance at Holyrood dog of the year. He also spoke about something that is not often mentioned in Parliament, which is how often abducted dogs can go on to face really horrific cruelty. Rhoda Grant wants the Government to provide a more comprehensive piece of legislation, and Mark Ruskell spoke about how inadequate the current legal framework is.”
“It was good to hear from the convener of the lead committee for consideration of the bill that the stage 1 report was balanced, rigorous and fair, and that there was unanimous support for its recommendations. We also heard how open Maurice Golden is to working with everyone to refine the bill further at stage 2. It was disappointing to hear that the Scottish Government has offered only conditional support for the bill, in that it wants to remove the provisions on victim statements and the requirement for the Government to publish an annual report on the operation of the legislation. That was related to resource issues. However, the Government is committed to delivering a reporting component in whatever way that might be possible.”
“Maurice Golden’s bill seeks to take into account the welfare impact of a dog theft on both the owner and the dog, to act as a deterrent by introducing much harsher penalties for those who are found guilty of an offence, and to enable more accurate data recording to take place to help to identify areas for further interventions. As we have heard, the bill also seeks to bring Scotland into line with England and Northern Ireland, where the UK Pet Abduction Act 2024 provides for the emotional impact on owners to be considered as part of sentencing. In our general election manifesto, we committed to better protecting dogs against theft, and we highlighted how much we are committed to animal welfare. Maurice Golden spoke about how interested he is in the principles of justice and about how losing a dog to theft compounds the sense of trauma.”
“As a dog owner, I am pleased to close the debate for the Conservatives. Alfie makes my life complete. Since we brought him home in February three years ago, I have become a bit of a convert. However, I am gutted that, as yet, he has only been second in the Holyrood dog of the year competition—my partner Alasdair nearly sent him back home. The theft of a dog is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to an owner. However, the law currently considers it in the same way as it would the theft of an inanimate object, which, given what we have heard today, is not fair.”
“What support can the Scottish Government offer to those businesses during this transition period?”
“The visitor levy came into effect in Edinburgh yesterday, yet the final guidance for businesses was published only last week. The owner of Linwater caravan park has contacted me, stating that “Accommodation Providers are reporting to me that Booking systems have been unable to adapt in time, particularly to the 5-night rule; meaning” many “small operators now face the choice of applying the 5% levy incorrectly to all nights or inputting it manually for every booking. This is creating significant risks of error, bank refund fees, and an extra administrative burden that small businesses can ill afford.” I believe that it is unreasonable to expect those businesses to request the redesign of global booking systems and processes in just a few working days, especially when they have been seeking clarity from the council since July.”
“What carbon budgeting has been carried out in relation to assessing the impact of transporting waste from Scotland to England when the landfill ban comes into force? Gillian Martin: I am working hard with my officials and the waste sector to ensure that we keep as much of our waste as possible in Scotland to be recycled. I will not countenance the idea of waste being sent to landfill in England. We will have a landfill ban, and I am working with the sector at pace to ensure that everyone is ready for that. Local authorities have already done a great deal of work to reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill, and I am confident that we will have a solution in place.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that major projects funded through city region deals are delivered at pace through administrative hurdles, to avoid any rising costs or communities waiting unnecessarily for planned infrastructure. (S6O-04969)”
“In order for us to take stock and think carefully about the way forward so that we can provide a more coherent and effective structure, we want a dedicated, short-term committee examining the options and a moratorium being put in place on any new commissioners while it does so. Again, I thank Mr Macpherson and his committee for their work. 16:26”
“Ben Macpherson: Ms Webber was previously the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Would she agree with me that, due to the amount of legislation and other demands, it is quite difficult for committees to make space to carry out such scrutiny? Sue Webber: I agree. As convener of that committee, I was fortunate that we had only one commissioner reporting to us, making it easier to programme that in. I know that having many commissioners would make that even harder to do. As I said, the lack of accountability cannot be right and is just another reason why the current landscape is not working well. There has been much food for thought throughout this welcome debate, including about how well Parliament operates when disbursing public money.”
“I do not say this lightly, but on some matters today, I agree whole-heartedly with my colleague Lorna Slater. On more than one occasion, committee members felt compelled to ask witnesses how convenient it was for the Government to think, when problems arose, that the matter could be dealt with by a commissioner rather than by a minister. Would it not be better to target money at the public service that is failing, rather than at the commissioner process? The committee’s report says that it found too much duplication in the system and too little public awareness about the role that each commissioner plays. Some commissioners also told the committee that they did not really feel accountable because they were seldom, if ever, called before a committee to give evidence. That cannot be right.”
“I agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner when he said that “a lot of the desire for future commissioners is a bellwether to the lack of trust and confidence in a lot of public services.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 16.] Age Scotland commented that the SPCB- supported body model is “an established way of getting more effective action on particular issues”,—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 7 May 2024; c 3.] especially as the model provides for more independence. In other words, it implies that the best route might not always be via ministers, but it is clear that the current model is deficient when solving the problem and that the Government finds it far too easy to pass the buck for those failures.”
“All that context was important to enable the Finance and Public Administration Committee to understand better what was driving the substantial increase in the number of proposals to create new SPCB-supported bodies, following a period of relative stability in the commissioner landscape. As Mr Macpherson’s committee acknowledges, as did Mr Gibson’s committee, the evidence is clear that the current model is no longer fit for purpose, as it lacks clarity and coherence, sufficient accountability and transparency over budget setting. That combination produces a cocktail that is bad for stakeholders and bad for the reputation of the Parliament. However, as well as setting out that recognition, the committee was clear that we need to look at the advocacy type of commissioner, for which demand is increasing.”
“We need to recognise that the current structures have evolved over time and on an ad hoc basis rather than through any coherent structure, which has clearly led to the questions that we face on sustainability. There are significant financial pressures on public finances. There are then the concerns about the delivery of some of the public services—that has been seen as deficient, and we have heard about that today—and about the Scottish Government’s delay and confusion in setting out exactly what parameters will drive much-needed public sector reform and on what basis the Government will be measured in delivering better public services.”
“I put on record that Liz Smith was very much hoping to take part in the debate this afternoon. I hope that I can do some of her comments justice. I very much welcome the report and the engagement with MSPs on the part of Ben Macpherson and his colleagues. I am pleased to note that there is a common theme in the findings of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee and those of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is an important reflection of where we are. I remember giving evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee during its inquiry when I was the convener of the Education, Children and Young People’s Committee. The most important thing about the entire debate is the context in which it is taking place.”
“Since 2021, we have provided total funding of £64 million towards the construction of four new schools. I am more than happy to meet the member and campaigners in relation to the points that she has made. Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill 2.”
“As a former councillor who campaigned and fought alongside the community, I can report that the new facilities in Currie are quite special. However, the campus is far from complete. Following the demolition of the old building, the ambitious plans to create outdoor learning spaces and first-class sports facilities are under threat. Will the cabinet secretary meet me and parents to understand the need for the ambitious campus to be delivered as promised, following the successful community campaign to keep both Currie and Wester Hailes high schools in the heart of their respective communities? Jenny Gilruth: Ms Webber raises an important point, and I am more than happy to meet her and campaigners. We have provided the City of Edinburgh Council with significant funding for both schools.”
“Will the member take an intervention on the use of the term “cis woman”? Maggie Chapman: I am using the words— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Chapman, please resume your seat. I do not think that the member was taking an intervention. Maggie Chapman: No, I was not.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what actions it is taking to address the illegal use of off-road bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. (S6O-04942)”
“The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Meeting closed at 17:10. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit. Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament recognises that demand for Scottish exports is strong due to Scotland’s high-quality products and services, and its excellence in sectors such as food and drink, professional, scientific, and technical activities; notes that global trade challenges, including geopolitical uncertainty, Brexit, and trade tariffs, are having a detrimental impact on Scottish businesses; welcomes the Scottish Government’s Six Point Export Plan, which is supporting Scottish businesses to respond to these challenges; notes that the additional support being provided, builds on effective and continued delivery of A Trading Nation, the Scottish Government’s export growth strategy, as indicated through Scottish Enterprise’s highest ever level of forecast export sales in 2024-25; acknowledges that meaningful collaboration between partners to promote Scotland internationally, using the Scottish Government-led award-winning Brand Scotland collateral, will boost awareness of Scotland’s strengths and increase opportunities for export growth, and calls on the UK Government to fully address the continuing impacts of Brexit on Scottish and UK trade by rejoining the European Union, and reverse its damaging decision to increase employers’ national insurance contributions, which is harming business confidence and Scotland’s economy.”
“For 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) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) 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) 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) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) 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, 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) 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) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (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) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) 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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Abstentions Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-18795, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish exports in response to global uncertainty, is: For 60, Against 49, Abstentions 7.”
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The final question is, that motion S6M-18795, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish exports in response to global uncertainty, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not refresh; I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: We will ensure that that is recorded. For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] 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) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) 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) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] 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) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-18795.1, in the name of Daniel Johnson, is: For 23, Against 91, Abstentions 0.”
“Sue Webber: Lothian Buses has done an awful lot of study and data analysis—it is the only bus company to have done that—and its research shows a direct correlation between the increase in antisocial behaviour and violence on the buses and the introduction of the under-22 bus pass. I cannot hide from that.”
“As the shadow cabinet secretary for transport in the Scottish Parliament, I spent an evening on patrol with Lothian Buses and Police Scotland, and I witnessed at first hand the growing problems of antisocial behaviour and heard the views of drivers and passengers. Alasdair Allan: I agree entirely with what the member has said about the need to tackle antisocial behaviour and the problem that it causes on transport. However, I am sure that she would wish to put on the record that antisocial behaviour on public transport is not restricted to people who are under the age of 22.”
“Access to colleges, universities, apprenticeships and work is so important for young people as they grow into young adults. The young person’s under-22 bus travel scheme has attracted a huge number of participants and has increased our young people’s mobility. However, I will talk a bit about the challenges. Most people who use the under-22 scheme exercise their participation thoughtfully, but some groups of youths are abusing the scheme to engage in antisocial behaviour. The actions of the very disruptive minority are unacceptable and we must be prepared to tackle antisocial behaviour head on.”
“We all know the importance of good transport links for the Scottish economy and businesses, but they play a key role in our social development. Dr Allan outlined some specific challenges in our island and rural communities, and some of my colleagues in the Scottish Conservatives tell me about the limitations in rural areas because of the lack of public transport. That inequality is not acceptable. We need good transport links to form the backbone of our communities. They link people to work, education and leisure, and they offer a direct alternative to car travel. The benefits of good public transport are particularly important for young people’s access to social, educational and employment opportunities, while it also gives them independence.”
“I extend my thanks to Sarah Boyack for securing the motion for debate in the chamber and congratulate the Scottish Youth Parliament on its work, which is about reinforcing the importance of youth voices in discussions about our country’s transport needs. We cannot disagree with the statement that public transport should be affordable, safe, accessible and reliable, not just for young people, but for everyone across Lothian and Scotland. In Edinburgh and the Lothians, we are lucky enough to have an award-winning, first-rate bus service, Lothian Buses. However, other parts of the country are not so fortunate and suffer from extremely limited bus services and infrastructure. In some cases, there are no bus services.”
“I move amendment S6M-18763.1, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert: “urges the Scottish Government to ensure that value-for- money and passenger satisfaction remain at the forefront of railway delivery in Scotland; notes that the cross-party support for the removal of peak rail fares was made possible thanks to a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party motion that called on the Scottish Government to remove them; recognises the importance of rail to the Scottish economy and business, such as in the transportation of whisky and fresh produce, and agrees that rail is important to the future decarbonisation of transport; notes that new railway developments should be linked to future centres of population growth, such as at Winchburgh, and calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it plans to deliver upgraded rail links in existing towns and villages, and connect those that do not have a rail link; recognises that future development of the railway in Scotland is hindered by aging 19th century infrastructure; calls on the Scottish Government to outline how it plans to future-proof the rail network, and urges the Scottish and UK governments to outline how they will work together to deliver private investment in the rail network.” 15:31”
“That is a strategic priority, but rail faces challenges with cost competitiveness when compared with road transport, especially following the abolition of a key freight support grant for 2024-25. Capacity constraints on critical cross- border and internal routes are hampering growth in rail freight. There are also challenges with asset renewal. In addition to the cost of the trains themselves, there is significant inflation to contend with, and the supply chain disruptions are challenging. I have just clocked the time, so I will conclude. We must focus on putting passengers first, cutting waste in bloated quangos, tightening spending rules and focusing every penny on delivering a safe, reliable and modern railway that delivers value for money for taxpayers, commuters, businesses and our economy.”
“Businesses want to see a consistent long-term plan so that they can invest in this country, but, as I said, instability hinders long-term planning and discourages new talent from entering the industry. I have also heard that skills shortages are an issue and that workforce retention is challenging. A notable portion of the rail workforce—9.4 per cent in the past year alone, especially from supplier firms—has exited the industry, and that is causing a critical loss of expertise. Without a steady pipeline of projects, companies struggle to invest in the staff recruitment and training that are needed. In her opening remarks, the cabinet secretary mentioned the crucial nature of growth in rail freight.”
“The Scottish Government is committed to spending in excess of £6 billion on new road capacity on corridors from Perth and Aberdeen to Inverness, yet no similar ambition exists for parallel rail routes. The Highland main line has been left with infrastructure that the Victorians would recognise, while an Aberdeen city deal promise that £200 million would be spent on faster line speeds north of Dundee has been reneged on. It is vital that the SNP outlines how it plans to future proof the rail network. We have heard about the importance of the supply chain from organisations that are concerned about boom and bust in the investment cycles. The sector faces real uncertainty due to the boom and bust that is part of the cyclical nature of rail infrastructure spending.”
“The future development of our railway is currently hindered by its ageing 19th century infrastructure—we cannot hide from that; it is a fact—and the ageing ScotRail fleet. Joanne Maguire, the director of ScotRail, has said: “We have got another challenge with ageing—that’s our fleet. We have one of the oldest fleets in Britain.” On key intercity routes, the reliability of the InterCity 125 fleet has been a persistent disappointment and has led to overcrowding and service disruptions. Rural lines face equally significant challenges. Iconic routes such as the west Highland and far north lines remain plagued by outdated infrastructure and limited amenities, despite our scenic railways holding immense untapped potential.”
“Residents are buying homes there because they are in easy reach of Edinburgh for social and leisure activities, but they will have to drive. We need to help those people to make the decision to use public transport. The Scottish Government motion makes no mention at all of new rail building for those vital new communities and homes. Instead, there are dire warnings about threats to the Scottish ministers’ powers. When she closes the debate, perhaps the cabinet secretary might outline what will be done to accelerate badly needed investment in our rail infrastructure, instead of displaying the customary foot dragging that slows up so many practical and cost-effective schemes such as Winchburgh and the Almond chord. We need investment in the train fleet, which is ageing, and our assets, which are in need of renewal.”
“The Almond chord line would connect services from Fife to the west of Scotland and, with all the new houses that are being built in west Edinburgh, I know that commuters are crying out for that to be considered. However, there is no future plan today. In the debate, we are celebrating stations that have come into service, but there is no detail on what stations will come in the future. The Blindwells development in East Lothian will result in 10,000 new homes, but, despite the east coast main line running through that stretch of what is an ever- expanding commuter area, there is only one train per hour. The homes are being touted as commutable to Edinburgh, but it seems that going by car will be far more preferable to taking the train.”
“The establishment of a new railway station would enhance connectivity, ease traffic congestion in West Lothian and the west of Edinburgh, and support our ambitions to provide sustainable transport solutions. There will be 4,000 new families living there, and they will need that connection. A new station in Winchburgh is essential. It is not only a necessity to alleviate mounting congestion but critical for the Scottish Government to meet its failing net zero ambitions. That is also true of investment in the Almond chord line, because, if investment was made there, it would make Edinburgh Gateway station, in which £41 million was invested, look like less of a white elephant.”
“Does Sue Webber recognise that, if what her amendment sets out had been the policy in the past, it would have prevented the Borders railway, which, in fact, was introduced because of a declining population? Indeed, the terms of her amendment might undermine those people who are campaigning for the extension of the Borders railway. Sue Webber: This is part and parcel of today’s debate. The motion that the SNP has lodged looks back. I want to look forward to the future. Winchburgh is a perfect example of a place that would benefit from a train station; I have been pushing for that in this Parliament for some years now. Winchburgh is a vibrant and growing community in West Lothian, and it desperately needs to be connected to the rail network.”
“However, I am thrilled with the SNP’s latest U-turn, which is long overdue. The Scottish Conservatives have always said that we would permanently scrap peak rail fares to ease the burden on hard- working Scots. Today’s debate is also about improving rail connections throughout Scotland. That is not just about the regional benefits—it is a national priority. We need to enhance the infrastructure to not only foster local community cohesion but bolster the entire country’s transport network. Passengers have been let down by SNP mismanagement. It is common sense to link new railway developments to future centres of population growth, and the SNP Government must outline how it plans to link the railway with growing towns and villages across the country. Fiona Hyslop: I note the terms of the Conservative amendment.”
“The SNP’s decision to reintroduce peak fares across ScotRail trains last year was a disastrous decision, which served to punish hard-working Scots, especially those businesses and employees who were just considering returning to work to kick-start their business performance and increase productivity. We campaigned against that. Despite being defeated on a Scottish Conservative motion on the issue last year—a year ago almost to the day—the SNP refused to budge. Its members claimed at the time that abolishing peak fares permanently was unaffordable. Perhaps I am far too cynical, but the timing of the U-turn did not really come as a surprise to me. The Government was desperate for a good news story and desperate to take full credit—we have seen that modus operandi before from the SNP.”
“The Scottish National Party promised an improved ScotRail when it nationalised the rail service more than three years ago, yet, under the SNP, public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Ticket prices and the number of complaints have soared, while the number of services and the number of passengers have plummeted. Indeed, there is not a single mention in the Scottish Government motion of the stark fact that our rail services have never quite got back to offering anything like the same level of service that they offered pre-Covid. Fiona Hyslop: Will the member give way? Sue Webber: Not at the moment. That fact is one of the reasons why so many people are reluctant to get back to office working, and that decision has a direct correlation with the recovery of town and city centre economies.”
“I think that we can all agree on the importance of rail to the Scottish economy and Scottish business, such as in the transportation of whisky and fresh produce, as well as on the importance of rail to the future decarbonisation of transport. Rail also plays a key role in Scotland’s social development. Our railways have long been a backbone of our communities, linking people to work, education and leisure while offering a critical environmental alternative to car travel. Rather than simply celebrating past achievements, however, the Scottish Conservative amendment calls for a forward-looking strategy that will ensure that the needs of the public and the wider economy are met. It is vital that the Scottish Government ensures that value for money and passenger satisfaction remain at the forefront of railway delivery in Scotland.”
“Last year, we opened the Levenmouth rail link, with Leven, Cameron Bridge and their active travel network finally reconnected to Scotland’s rail network through direct services to Edinburgh via Kirkcaldy. In May, ScotRail introduced a second train each hour via Dunfermline and the wider Fife network in order to provide additional journey opportunities. I know that, during the debate, we will hear ambitious calls for more stations—as we already have done—and for more lines. I doubt that I will be able to address them all in my closing speech, but I will try.”