Rhoda Grant
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To correct the minister, I say that the agricultural funding was rolled up into the block grant rather than being Barnettised. The exact same amount of money is being received because of that. Stakeholders are concerned about the lack of detail in tiers 2 and 3 of the rural support plan.”
“It feels a little like groundhog day. South Uist and Barra face yet another chaotic holiday period. South Uist faces an 85 per cent cut in its ferry service during the Easter period. The First Minister knows that this community has suffered from cuts for years, and that has caused businesses to struggle.”
“We have given certainty about what the payments will look like between now and 2030. The funding has been Barnettised—it may well be rolled up into the block grant, but it has definitely been Barnettised. The funds from the United Kingdom Government have been frozen.”
“This will be my last speech in the Parliament, and it feels apt that it is about crofting, because the cross-party group on crofting was one of the first cross-party groups that I was involved in setting up, and it feels as though things have come full circle. It would be wrong of me, in my last speech, not to pay tribute to some people.”
“I thank Tim Eagle for his kind remarks. There will be a lot of thank yous in this contribution, because I also want to thank all those who helped us with our work on the bill, including Parliament staff on the committee and in the legislation team, as well as those who gave evidence to the committee and the bill team and the minister, for…”
“As MSPs, we should remember that we could achieve only a fraction of what we do were it not for those who work with us, so I thank them for their support. I also want to thank our Scottish Labour staff pool and the parliamentary staff who support us so well.”
The complete record
Every one of 428 lines we hold for Rhoda Grant, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“As the cabinet secretary said, we had a statement yesterday that tried to draw a line under the ferry fiasco, but, sadly, it did not. We are still seeing prolonged dry-dock periods for both the new ferry and the older vessels in the fleet. Making pre-election promises does not cut it with communities that have suffered years of disruption. People are missing health appointments, weddings and funerals, and they have to leave for events earlier than they should just to be sure to make appointments. That adds costs and takes money out of the pockets of islanders. Local businesses struggle, their losses mounting up, and haulage providers are disrupted—every aspect of island life is impacted. We called for the fines that are levied on CalMac for contract breaches to be used as a resilience fund to support impacted island businesses.”
“The objectives of the scheme were about investing in what we were trying to achieve in relation to our climate and nature restoration targets, and we made it a priority to encourage the priority groups to apply for the fund. As I said in my initial answer to Willie Rennie, we are looking at the scheme to work out why people did not understand the forms that we were asking them to fill in. By doing that, we will, I hope, get them to fill in the forms and put in applications that are eligible. Future Farming Investment Scheme (Guidance on Grounds for Rejection) 8.”
“The minister will be aware that many small farmers and crofters and those in island areas spent a lot of money preparing applications for the previous scheme, from which they gained little or nothing, even though they should have been prioritised. Will he make the new round of the scheme easier to apply to, so that people do not have to risk their own finances and end up getting nothing in return? Jim Fairlie: Rhoda Grant said that those people should have been prioritised. I remind the member that applying to the scheme was not—and was never meant to be—a guarantee of funding for the priority groups, who still had to meet the scheme’s objectives. I see Rhoda Grant shaking her head at my point.”
“Indeed, it has been of such benefit that we have extended it with a further tranche of funding. The Government is investing in our islands and in our communities. I am in some sorrow that there was nothing in my statement that the Labour Party lead could find to support in any way whatsoever.”
“Fiona Hyslop: The member has missed the point that we are about to go into procurement for the MV Lord of the Isles, which will serve the Western Isles. That will be very welcome indeed. We are also announcing the direct award of two vessels to be built by Ferguson Marine. Those things have been a long time in development and planning, but the investments that have been taking place, particularly in the ports and harbours across the Clyde and Hebrides services, have been happening through the course of this year. The Government is committed to investment. A third of the entire Clyde and Hebrides fleet is being replaced, in terms of procurement and building activity, as we speak. On support for businesses, I am pleased that my colleague Mairi Gougeon announced the island business resilience fund, which has benefited a number of islands.”
“I, too, thank Angus Campbell for his work on the communities board. The cabinet secretary’s statement is equivalent to the photo op of the Glen Sannox with painted- on windows. Anyone would think that there was an election looming. The statement suggests that the Scottish Government lives in a parallel universe. There is no mention that the MV Glen Sannox was in reality rebuilt by plundering the MV Glen Rosa for parts. Indeed, we will soon revert to calling the MV Glen Rosa hull 802, because it will be that diminished. CalMac’s app says that a third of sailings today are subject to disruption. Will the cabinet secretary say what she is doing to support the communities that are suffering those disruptions? When will the Scottish Government face up to its responsibilities and ensure that communities are properly compensated?”
“Many people spoke about budgets and mentioned huge amounts of money. I would welcome constraints to the budget, but again with the caveat that, if the inquiry needed to go in an unforeseen direction, it could come back and expand that budget. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Grant, will you please conclude? Rhoda Grant: I will conclude. I will finish by thanking the committee for its report on public inquiries and reminding us all that we must have cognisance of the people who need those inquiries to hear what happened to themselves or their loved ones so that they can get closure. That must remain at the heart of our deliberations. 15:27”
“He also talked about the culture of secrecy that often runs through the necessity of having those inquiries and about people having to fight to get to the truth of the matter. I think that that has been lost in this debate, because some people have to really push for inquiries because they need answers for closure. One of the issues that is in the report but has not been touched on today is the delay in giving people a right to reply if they are identified in an inquiry as having been in some way culpable or if they attract criticism from the inquiry. I agree that that can be used to slow the process down, especially when people do not want to hear the outcome of the inquiry, but they still need a right to reply, albeit they would need to have a time constraint on how long it would take them to do that.”
“It seems to me that if we had uncovered other options—for instance a duty of candour— that would have been better than standing the cost to the public purse. The length of time taken by public inquiries delays people getting closure, because they are waiting for answers. One of the speakers—I think that it was John Mason—talked about feeling that nobody would have ever accepted the answers that they were given, but that is because of the time that is taken. If you have not been given a timely response, sometimes you cannot get over that, and you are stuck. That is why a duty of candour would do much to meet the needs of people who are seeking answers. Martin Whitfield said that having timely answers and faster responses from public inquiries would mean that those answers would be put in place and mistakes would not recur.”
“Even when it is a long and complex public inquiry, surely the Government could provide interim responses to the issues, while taking more time to address the more complex issues that have been highlighted by the recommendations of the inquiry. Other members talked about having a clear remit for public inquiries—the Government appears to concede that. I would suggest that that clear remit needs to be devised alongside those who have been impacted and seek answers, so that they have confidence in the process. It would also allow the inquiry to come back to the Government to expand the remit, if the inquiry feels that that is necessary, for example if the evidence takes it into a previously unforeseen area. Many members talked about the costs of public inquiries.”
“For the most part, that is all that people want to hear, but it does not happen. As Martin Whitfield said, public inquiries give families and communities the answers that they need. The committee is concerned that the Scottish Government has not accepted all its recommendations, although the Deputy First Minister seemed to hint that this is not the Government’s last word on the issue. I hope that the Government will consider the other recommendations and see where improvements can be made. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that public inquiries are there to serve the people we represent. The committee talked about receiving more timely responses from the Government to the findings of public inquiries. That is necessary.”
“I thank the committee for carrying out its inquiry. Public inquiries are necessary, and especially so when someone is harmed by a public body, either directly or by omission. Demand for inquiries is increasing, because of a lack of trust in public bodies. That point was made by Liz Smith, who quoted John Sturrock KC, but I would suggest that it may also be due to a lack of candour on the part of public bodies. All MSPs will have had casework in which someone cannot gain closure, simply because they are not being told what happened or whether there were mistakes, or, if there were mistakes, receiving a meaningful apology. If that was provided, many calls for public inquiries might not be so great. If people knew what happened to their loved ones, they might be satisfied.”
“Scottish Labour has argued in the past for a community right of appeal in planning applications, and this case highlights our reasons for doing so. Therefore, I urge the minister to ensure that the community is informed of proposals at every stage and, more important, that it is heard at every stage. 18:27”
“They will have a direct role in deciding on marine licence applications, or they will be able to use their call-in powers with any application that falls to the local authority. Obviously, that causes concern, because what if the body making the decision on the application has already invested in the proposal? The process not only needs to be fair—it has to be seen to be fair. Clearly, there needs to be much more public information and consultation. I have spoken in the chamber before about the need for better marine planning that takes account of the needs of all marine users. Too often, we see the fishing community squeezed to make way for innovation, renewables, telecoms and energy connections. A thriving fishing industry provides local wealth and anchors our communities, and we need to value and protect it.”
“I do not think that simply moving the site would work either, because another community would need to be consulted and may have similar concerns. It is important that a discussion is had before any application is put in. There are also concerns about public bodies providing funding for the project—the Crown Estate to the tune of £1.5 million, and Scottish Enterprise to the tune of £1.8 million, as has been highlighted by Douglas Ross. Those organisations can spend their funding as it suits them, but it gives people real concern to see funds being invested by the same public bodies that are part of the Scottish Government and which will have a role in making a decision on any application.”
“We do not even know to which body the application would be made and what process would be used to assess it. What is clear is that those who are impacted by a potential flow park must be consulted, and the impacts on them and on local businesses must be taken account of. The proposed project has the potential to have an impact on local fishing and tourism businesses that are unable to move their businesses out of the way easily. I would hope the Offshore Solutions Group would be speaking to those businesses now and hearing their concerns. If it does not, it is going to find itself facing a backlash that no amount of information will diminish. It is simply wrong to allow speculation that puts people in fear of their livelihoods.”
“I, too, congratulate Douglas Ross on securing the debate and pay tribute to the campaigners who have come such a long way to their Parliament to make their case. I am sorry that I missed them earlier—I was late in coming to the drop-in event, and they had already left for the chamber. I acknowledge the real concerns that have been expressed about the potential application. No application has been lodged, so we debate the issue in a vacuum with little or no information about what is proposed and what the impact will be. On the one hand, flagging up a potential development at an early stage is welcome, in that it gives people more chance to consider its impact. On the other hand, doing so without providing information obviously causes concern, as people cannot see what the impact would be and the effect that it would have on them.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what the obligations of local government are in relation to the funding of local arts, heritage and culture services. (S6O-05517)”
“That is an important part of the work that we need to do. I highlight that I am disappointed about the restrictions that the United Kingdom Government has put on visas for dental technicians. Those visas would allow us to improve our workforce in Scotland and across the UK, to ensure that people get the right support from their dentist as they need it.”
“There are five major dental vacancies across the Outer Hebrides, including three in Uist and Barra. Those include a critical senior dental officer role. Patients who cannot register with a dentist are being told not to make emergency appointments unless they cannot sleep due to the pain. I understand that there are issues with ventilation and fallow time in the surgeries, which limit the number of daily appointments that can be taken. What is the minister doing to address those issues and to ensure that dentists are recruited and retained and that surgeries are upgraded to allow a continuous flow of patients? Jenni Minto: As I indicated in my answer to Dr Allan, we are in the process of reviewing the dental access improvement schemes and the funding that is available to dentists, to ensure that practices are set up.”
“We are taking into consideration the views that were heard during the discussions on the SSI, but it is not possible for me to introduce another SSI in the time that is left in this session of Parliament. However, the work will continue, because we want to ensure that, when the good food nation plan is taken into consideration, it is done in a meaningful way that will have a tangible impact. Marine Protection Vessels (Marine Scotland) 4.”
“The cabinet secretary is aware that there were concerns that the Scottish statutory instrument on the good food nation plan that she introduced last year was drawn very narrowly and omitted crucial sectors such as agriculture and fisheries. Has she had time to reflect on that? Does she plan to expand the scope of the instrument? Mairi Gougeon: First, to be clear, the SSI that was laid at that time was framed in a very particular way and was focused on specified functions. It needed to be framed in that way to enable the good food nation plan to be taken into consideration when those powers and functions were exercised. To say that it did not include agriculture and fisheries is not necessarily the case, because those sectors were to be considered through the rural support plan and in the national marine plan.”
“To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure the long- term financial and operational stability of specialist domestic abuse services in the Highlands. (S6F- 04638)”
“Is that the country that members want to bring up their daughters and granddaughters in? I really do not think that any of us would put our hand on our heart and say, “Yes.” If members agree with that, they must vote for the general principles of the bill. They must join the many others who will not accept this abuse. I ask members to join those who seek to protect future generations of women from men who would treat them as commodities, and together we can make the change. Let us start by voting for the bill at decision time tonight. 17:08”
“In the past, pardons have been offered for activities that were once criminalised but which we now see should never have been. We can ensure that disclosure checks do not list past convictions for soliciting, and there are myriad other ways in which this can be dealt with. Removing criminality from those in prostitution would ensure that never again will anyone in Scotland be criminalised for their own abuse. Surely we can all get behind that. We then come to the nub of the issue, which is the buyers who feed the demand for exploitation— the small minority of men who believe that they are entitled to sex regardless of whether their chosen partner wants to have sex with them. That is rape, yet I fear that, today, we will allow these rapists to get off scot free. Is that really the country that we want to live in?”
“Therefore, concerning ourselves with the cost of supporting people should be a reason for our shame, not a reason for our voting against the bill. The services that are needed to support people should be in place now. Regardless of whether the bill proceeds, they must be put in place. If we really believe that prostitution is violence against women, we need to support women in prostitution. We should also all be in favour of stopping the exploited being criminalised. We recognise that prostitution is abuse, yet we sit back and allow our laws to criminalise the victims for their own abuse. In what way is that right? I do not believe that any of us would suggest that it is right. There will be issues about quashing convictions, but there are ways around that.”
“No bill has been passed without amendment, although some have been worse than others. We are not here today to make a judgment on that; we are here to make a judgment on the general principles of a bill that seeks to stop the gendered exploitation of women. This Parliament and the Scottish Government recognise that prostitution is violence against women, yet it feels as if many are looking for excuses not to address that violence. If we truly believe that prostitution is violence against women, the costs associated with the bill should not be a barrier. Nobody in our midst would say that combating domestic abuse is too expensive or that we should shut domestic abuse courts and women’s refuges and stop offering counselling. We know that prostitution is wrong and we need to combat it.”
“It showed men reviewing women in prostitution on a kind of TripAdvisor for prostitution; men complaining about the lack of enjoyment displayed by their victims; men recognising that women whom they were abusing were being trafficked, but doing nothing about it; and men talking about their abuse, which involved forcing women to do things they clearly did not want to do, with no remorse. These men need to be held accountable for their abuse. They are ordinary men. Many of them are married or in long-term relationships, yet they buy sex to have control and to ask those women for things that other consenting adults would not do or gain any enjoyment from. It is completely selfish exploitation. The bill seeks to stop that exploitation. Is it drafted perfectly? No. If it was, it would be the first bill in this Parliament to be so.”
“I do not think that many here would agree that another human being should be a commodity to be bought and sold, and neither do I believe that anyone present would think that vulnerable people should be exploited. However, I do believe that many in the chamber have not really thought through what prostitution is or what its impacts are. I ask them to consider whether, if their mother, sister or daughter was involved in prostitution, they would see that as an ordinary job. How would they regard the men who paid for access to that woman’s body and would they believe that that payment bought consent? I ask everyone to take a moment to think about that. I also ask them to think about the men who buy sex, who are often missed out of the whole debate. Anyone who has seen the report of the “invisible men” project cannot help but be horrified.”
“It garners wider support for the bill and the aims that it seeks to pursue. I am pleased that we will support the bill when it is voted on tonight. 17:53”
“She spoke about her own work on non- native species, clearly underlining that this bill is not job done but a framework for redoubling our efforts. Those sentiments were echoed by Mark Ruskell. Beatrice Wishart spoke about her amendments that were aimed at dovetailing this legislation with targets in other legislation. It is incredibly important that all legislation and strategies to protect our environment, nature and the planet work together simultaneously. Scottish Labour has been constructive. We have worked hard to improve the legislation wherever possible, to try to give voice to the concerns of stakeholders as they brought those to us, and using their knowledge and expertise to frame amendments to the bill. We believe that that inclusive approach leads to better legislation.”
“I remember chatting with the committee after the bill team had given its briefing but before we started our scrutiny, and our surmising that parts 1 and 2 would be straightforward to deal with, but the other parts, with which we were much more familiar, would require amending. That was before we took evidence, and how wrong we were. I guess that the lesson to be learned for the next Parliament is to put proposed legislation to the appropriate committee and not be swayed from doing that. I also want to thank the minister and the bill team for their constructive assistance with amendments on deer control. As Sarah Boyack said, we have sought to work constructively with stakeholders and with Government to improve the bill. Mercedes Villalba laid bare the challenges that we face.”
“We build up our knowledge over time, but we depend on specialists allowing us to use their knowledge and experience in order to do our job well. As Sarah Boyack said, we face the twin challenges of the climate change and nature emergencies, and we need legislation to help us meet those challenges. She was also clear that the bill is not a quick fix but legislation that needs to be built on for the wellbeing of not only our generation but future generations. One of the real challenges for the Rural and Islands Committee in scrutinising the bill was that we had a steep learning curve when it came to parts 1 and 2.”
“I thank all those who assisted with the scrutiny of the bill, including Parliament staff who support the committee. I offer a very special thank you to the legislation team, which helped members frame amendments to the bill. I was reminded of the work that that team does when I received emails from them late yesterday evening while we were debating amendments. I also thank all the stakeholders who engaged on it. The bill is wide ranging, so there were many stakeholders involved. It was very hard to keep on top of the correspondence as we neared stage 3, and I apologise to all those to whom I have not responded. Their input was very much appreciated—in fact, not only was it appreciated, it was essential, because MSPs are not specialists on all the issues.”
“It is simply not good enough to keep having random members’ bills that, although well meaning, do very little to tackle the welfare of dogs. The bill bans only oval racetracks, which will leave a loophole, and, although straight tracks are seen as much safer, that ban could lead to figure- of-eight tracks being developed, which I assume would be more dangerous.”
“Unfortunately, that is going to be the norm over the next eight weeks. Essential legislation that we need to pass is coming forward—legislation that will make a huge difference to people’s lives. I am not convinced that we have the luxury to spend time on legislation that will have little or no effect when we risk losing impactful legislation because of it. The bill does not deal with animal welfare issues, so greyhounds will still be bred, trained and housed in Scotland, albeit that they will continue to be raced in England. We need the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to deal with the welfare of dogs, be they greyhounds or other breeds. We have puppy farms and illegally imported dogs, all held in terrible conditions. No dog should be mistreated, and the Government needs to act.”
“I, too, congratulate Mark Ruskell on taking a member’s bill to this stage. This is the fourth member’s bill that we have had in this Parliament regarding the welfare of dogs, but there has been no action whatsoever by Government. I will not vote for the general principles of the bill, because there are no greyhound racetracks in operation in Scotland at the moment. At best, the bill might prevent one from opening, but to open a track you need planning permission, which is not a simple process. Indeed, it is difficult to see how that could happen in the current climate. The Scottish Government proposed a licensing scheme for greyhound racing, but pulled back on that, as was mentioned earlier. Putting that aside, I do not need to tell members about the time pressure in this Parliament after the experience of this week.”
“We need to ensure that we manage the seas properly and that we do not leave that to happenstance, which is not helpful, but instead set a plan that would mean that everyone knows where they can fish and that works best for the environment.”
“I will speak briefly on amendment 66. Scottish Labour supports the amendment’s aims, but we are concerned about setting an arbitrary target that would not take into account local circumstances. We have always argued for a local management approach, in which the seas are managed in the local interest, in the way that works best for the community. We recognise that there are fishing boats that work further from home and that we need to enable them to fish in order to have fish for our markets, but we need to ensure that the seas are managed properly. Fishers already face challenges from other marine uses such as renewable energy, interconnectors and the like, so I do not think that setting an arbitrary target would work.”
“I start by apologising to the chamber, as I will be leaving the session early. I thank you, Presiding Officer, for the latitude to do so, as it enables me to attend a briefing on the A9 by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the number of dental practices that are accepting new NHS patients, including how it will monitor the effectiveness of the November 2023 payment reforms in improving access for patients in rural and island communities. (S6O-05397)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the independent review of maternity services in Caithness, including the remit and timescale of the review, and what detail has been shared with relevant duty bearers. (S6O- 05373)”
“Ms Grant is right to identify the issue that she raises but, if we want the A9 dualled, there will need to be construction work, and our contractors are working very hard to minimise disruptions, as I think that people who travel on the Tomatin to Moy route appreciate already. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We have about eight minutes left and 10 members who wish to ask questions, so we will need slightly briefer questions and responses.”
“However, I have indicated to the current convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that I think that transport would get more attention if the committees were readjusted. The current committee is diligent in its work and has received regular six-monthly updates from Transport Scotland officials. I am also open to being examined by the committee on the provision. I think that the way in which the programme has been set out has balanced what it means for contractors in terms of the market and how we manage that constant work, which Sue Webber does not seem to understand is happening now. We have to balance the work that is done with the needs of drivers and we have to try to prevent frustrations.”
“The timeline suggests that about 40 to 50 miles of the A9 could be under construction at the same time, yet the statement makes no mention of contingency for knock-on construction delays or of any mitigation for lengthy delays for road users at that time. It is clear that there are many risks to the project. Will the cabinet secretary therefore support the creation of a parliamentary committee dedicated to the project, as happened with the Queensferry crossing, and will she commit the Scottish Government to a duty of candour, as called for by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee? Fiona Hyslop: I am being as open as I can be. I have come to the chamber whenever there is anything to announce. Having a dedicated committee is a matter not for me, but for the next session of Parliament.”
“Therefore, Parliament must return to the matter in the next session if crofting and its value in slowing depopulation are not to be lost for future generations. 16:20”
“Part 2 of the bill, which concerns the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, is less contentious, but that might be because it was difficult to discuss the policy with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which made it difficult for the committee to get a clearer view of the practical issues. Although we understand that there must be a clear separation between the judiciary and Parliament, Parliament must consider the impact of changes on the running of court services, so there must be an ability to scrutinise that. I hope that the bill will cut bureaucracy, but it does nothing to reduce the complexity that exists or to put crofting on a secure footing for the future.”
“One of the most complex issues in the bill is that of grazing shares, which have sometimes come adrift from the croft, as many members have mentioned. In most cases, that has been unintentional, because the croft was sold and the conveyancing had not included the grazing share with the croft. The bill will put in place a default to stop that happening in future, but it does not deal with existing cases, so action needs to be taken to ensure that the land is being used. The most straightforward way to do that would be to reunite the share with the original croft.”
“By its very nature, crofting is environmentally friendly. Crofters who carry out carbon audits find that they sequester carbon rather than produce it. It is also nature friendly in practice, so if we are serious about the environment, we must support some of the traditional aspects of crofting while recognising that it is an economic driver and that people have to be able to make a living to stay and work in our crofting communities. The bill also does not make it clear that peat, trees, grass and other essential carbon stores belong to the tenant. Crofters have always had the right to cut peat and to grow and cut trees— indeed, we now have woodland crofts. The bill needs to provide clarity on that issue, because if it does not, we will face a block to peatland restoration.”
“The bill does nothing to encourage land use or to recognise crofting as an intrinsically agricultural practice in which, in order to make a living, a person must also have other employment. Because of that, diversification has been encouraged, which has meant that diversification such as the provision of holiday accommodation and the finding of other uses for the land has eclipsed the agricultural use of crofts. Some activities, such as growing vegetables, weaving and using the produce of the land, fit well with crofting, but others do not. Second homes and holiday lets are damaging crofting, and the bill does nothing about them. The bill’s only innovation is to look at environmental management as part of crofting, which is a positive move, as long as it does not disguise dereliction and rewilding as environmental management.”
“I, too, thank those who gave evidence, the bill team and the members of committee staff and SPICe who helped us in our consideration of the bill. Scottish Labour supports the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill, which is a very necessary piece of legislation that puts right some of the mistakes that were made in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. As well as helping to streamline processes, it will, I hope, allow practices to be modernised. However, crofters are desperately disappointed that the bill does nothing to deal with the current threats to crofting, which include market pressures. That market does not relate to crofting itself; it is to do with the fact that there is a housing crisis, coupled with the ambition to own second homes or holiday lets.”