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 3 of 9.
“However, the member will know that the Government is cognisant of business resilience issues in our islands, which is why Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, has provided £4.4 million for business resilience to islands that have been affected and impacted. That support was recently expanded to include Islay, Jura, Mull and other islands. Classroom Supplies 2.”
“This is not the first time that a CalMac chief executive has been given a severance package, and that is all due to the Scottish National Party Government’s mismanagement of our ferries. Meanwhile, the only people who are not being compensated for the ferry fiasco are the islanders who are suffering as a consequence. When will they be paid compensation and when will a permanent compensation package be put in place? The Presiding Officer: That is somewhat wide of the substantive question. Fiona Hyslop: It is, but I will try to address it if I can. We are not paying compensation for disruption across any of the transport modes, such as that recently seen on the trunk roads.”
“With a hollowed-out marine science centre in Aberdeen, that is simply not possible. We also need investment in processing. Our ambition is to increase the Scottish share of fishing in our waters, but we cannot do that without the ability to process the fish that we catch. We need a strategic plan for fishing to allow us to grow the industry, and that should be happening now. Instead, we see the Scottish Government trying to divert attention by blaming others for its failings. 14:34”
“Many fishing boats are concerned about their future, given cuts in quotas. Will the money be used to invest in technologies that will allow more selective fishing? Will it be used to improve fishery science? Last year, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee visited the marine laboratories in Aberdeen as part of our budget scrutiny. Staff were working in desperate conditions and carrying out a high standard of work despite that, but it was clear that Government cuts in marine science were impacting on what they could do. They are not independent of Government, which hampers their ability to get contracts elsewhere. We are dependent on the International Council for Exploration of the Seas for data, and we have to accept that data if we do not have robust data of our own to counteract it.”
“I am not going to rehash the points that I made a few days ago in a similar debate, but I do hope that the Scottish Government has reflected and that it will make sure that this does not happen again. I hope that it is trying to get agreement for the Scottish industry to be able to bid into the UK fund. The Scottish Government allocates marine fund grants to organisations in the rest of the UK, such as £57,703 to a company in Gloucester. That is a recognition that research and development will assist the whole of the UK, not just one part. As well as arguing that the Scottish Government should negotiate a greater share of the UK fund for the Scottish industry, I also ask what it is planning to do with the share that it has. Our coastal communities are crying out for funding, and we desperately need forward planning.”
“The SNP continues to complain about the fishing and coastal growth fund allocation, but it was devolved at the SNP’s request. It knew that devolved funding comes through the Barnett formula, yet getting its hands on the additional money for it to spend was more important than letting the Scottish fishing industry bid into a total UK pot. The SNP should have negotiated a greater share before asking for the money to be devolved. That is not a convoluted argument. It is a statement of fact, and failing to do that negotiation is another indication of the Government’s incompetence. Indeed, we should all be relieved that this Government was not asked by the Scottish people to negotiate a severance agreement with the UK, because that would have been an even greater disaster, given its incompetence.”
“In the committee session at which we discussed that instrument, I hope that I was able to outline that, although some stakeholders wanted a broad- brush approach to the specified functions and descriptions, taking too broad an approach and covering only one generic policy area would not deliver the outcomes that we would all want to see, which are to have that difference and specific consideration by other portfolios across Government, to ensure that we are delivering on the plan’s outcomes. I can commit that we will continue to have those conversations. If changes need to be made, we will consider them, but it is for a very good reason that we set out our approach, which would have enacted and delivered the plan’s outcomes. Land Reform (Land Justice) 6.”
“The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee voted against the Good Food Nation (Specified Functions and Descriptions) (Scottish Ministers) Regulations 2025 on 3 December. Has the cabinet secretary now decided to change that legislation to meet the ambitions of stakeholders and have in place a good food nation plan that covers all aspects of food policy, including agriculture and fisheries, which were missing from the instrument, or is the refusal to do so the reason why members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee are now resigning? Mairi Gougeon: I am disappointed that the committee did not support the affirmative statutory instrument at the recent meeting at which it was discussed, and it has since been withdrawn. We will continue to consider that and engage with stakeholders, as we have always done.”
“We need legislation that is not piecemeal but follows through all the issues of criminality around dogs and their breeding, sale, care and welfare. It looks like that will be a job for a new Government in the next Parliament. I hope that the new Government deals with this issue, because it is incredibly important to our constituents. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ariane Burgess to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 15:32”
“The awareness raising could also highlight the impact of dog theft on the animal and its owner, while reminding people that it is a serious crime and will lead to a criminal conviction. Although we support the bill, we note that there have been a number of members’ bills on dogs and their welfare in this session of Parliament. It is also clear that there is a lack of Government action on the issue of dogs and their welfare. We need these pieces of legislation to be brought together under new legislation that protects dogs and their owners. We know that dog smuggling goes on, and members’ legislation has tried to deal with unscrupulous breeders, but here we are again with legislation around dog theft.”
“That does not happen currently, so it was difficult to ascertain the prevalence of the offence. We suspect that it is significant, but we will not know that until data becomes available. We have all heard of cases where dogs have been stolen, and that is especially the case for sought- after breeds that are valuable and can be sold to order. That appeared to be more the case during the pandemic, when dogs were very much in demand, as people were spending more time at home. We will need to see whether that trend continues, but, without historical data that we can depend on, it will be difficult to follow trends. Arguably, the greatest benefit of this bill will be dependent on awareness raising being carried out in such a way that it acts as a deterrent to would- be criminals.”
“The law as it stands does not recognise the distress caused to the dog that is stolen; it recognises only the distress of the owner in having lost a possession and does not recognise the relationship between people and their pets. Pets are more like family members than possessions, and this bill seeks to highlight that relationship. The bill also includes an aggravated offence for the theft of a helper dog and allows the Scottish Government to add, by regulation, to that definition. The committee had discussions about police dogs, sheep dogs and the like. They are highly trained dogs that have a value due to that training. Obviously, guide dogs are already included in the bill’s definition of a helper dog. The bill also means that dog theft data will be reported.”
“I congratulate Maurice Golden on introducing the bill; it is not easy to bring a member’s bill to this stage. I thank committee staff and those working in the legislation team who support MSPs in scrutinising legislation, as they are often the unsung heroes of these processes. I also thank those who gave evidence and helped the committee with its deliberations. The bill changes dog theft from a common law offence to a specific offence in its own right. On the face of it, that appears to change nothing; it is still an offence to steal a dog. However, the bill raises awareness of dog theft. The common law treats a dog as a possession—a thing, rather than a sentient being.”
“The issue needs to be addressed, and I have continually suggested that to successive UK transport ministers. We remain firmly committed to delivering infrastructure that provides the connectivity, the decarbonised road transport and the sustainable economic growth that Scotland needs. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite Douglas Lumsden to wind up the debate. 16:59”
“The Office for Budget Responsibility itself asserts— Daniel Johnson: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Fiona Hyslop: I will address the member’s point. According to the OBR’s own assessment, hundreds of thousands of drivers will not switch to electric vehicles because of that tax policy, so it will not help to address climate change. The UK Government needs to engage on a four-nations basis in a comprehensive reform of motoring taxation to enable a long-term transition to EV charging. A Westminster committee said that the proposed policy would result in a £15 billion loss in other forms of car taxation. I also agree with what Jamie Greene said. If the policy is being driven solely by the Treasury in Whitehall and does not take on board the transport situation, the geography of Scotland and climate change, it is doomed to fail.”
“In addition, in August this year, I announced the provision of a further £4.5 million specifically to support public charging in rural and island communities, and we expect the guidance for Scotland on cross-pavement charging, which is being led by the Scottish Collaboration of Transportation Specialists, to be ready soon. There is a pilot cross-pavement charging fund in three local authority areas, including East Lothian, where I launched that funding. The Scottish Government rejects the ill-thought- out EV charge per mile policy of the UK Labour Government, which many members have mentioned. It will hit rural Scotland hardest and, as many have said, it represents a disincentive to switching to EV cars just when we need people to do so at scale.”
“Since 2011, the Scottish Government has invested more than £65 million in expanding Scotland’s public electric vehicle charging network. As a direct result of that, Scotland has a public charging network that compares favourably with that in any other part of the UK. Scotland has more than 7,400 public charge points, and we met our commitment to provide 6,000 charge points two years ahead of target. The latest official UK Government statistics show that, per head of population, Scotland currently has more rapid and ultra-rapid charge points than any other part of the UK. The Scottish Government continues to support the expansion of public charging infrastructure through our £30 million electric vehicle infrastructure fund for council consortia.”
“The Scottish Government is also leading on taking forward proposals to bypass the settlements of Springholm and Crocketford on the A75. We are progressing a number of other improvements across Scotland’s road network. I say to Mark Ruskell that we are addressing climate mitigation—that work includes the key project on the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful, which is designed to mitigate the risk of landslides. We are promoting a new grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk on the A90, and I assure members that we are committed to improving the A75 and A77 trunk roads, as well as the wider transport network in south-west Scotland. I want to move on to electric vehicles and our commitment to decarbonising road transport.”
“Fiona Hyslop: I need to go into the detail of the process. It is essential that people who are directly impacted have the right to formally comment on the proposals and that consideration is given to those comments in the decision-making process. The suggested Conservative law would cut across existing legislation, which supports public participation in environmental decision making, thereby bypassing and silencing the rights and views of people in Dunkeld and the surrounding area. In addition to progressing the A9 dualling programme, the Government is committed to dualling the A96, starting with the Inverness to Nairn section, which includes the Nairn bypass. Emma Roddick set out the importance of the order in which things are done and the need for the Nairn bypass, in particular, along with the Inshes to Smithton link road.”
“I reiterate that the Government is committed to delivering, and is on track to deliver, the A9 dualling by 2035. Anyone who drives along the road will see the works that are happening now. On the Conservatives’ call for an emergency law to accelerate the dualling of the A9, it is not clear what benefits, if any, the suggested emergency law would provide. The Scottish Government has already completed the statutory process for 10 out of the 11 projects in the dualling programme, which account for more than 92 per cent of the length to be dualled. Draft orders and an environmental impact assessment for the only project that is yet to complete the statutory process—the section between Pass of Birnam and Tay crossing—were published for comment in May. Finlay Carson: Will the cabinet secretary give way?”
“I welcome Daniel Johnson to his new transport portfolio and, to address his point about the centrality of transport to the economy and economic growth, I commend to him the value of the transport report that I commissioned. I agreed with a lot of the important points that Mark Ruskell made in his summing-up speech. He wants a wider debate, as does Rhoda Grant, but I did not set the timing of the debate, nor the motion that I am responding to. This SNP Government has built 33 major trunk road projects since 2007 and, in the process, constructed more than 280km of new trunk road, which has cost nearly £3 billion. In the course of the debate, I have listened carefully to the arguments on progressing with dualling works on the A9 between Perth and Inverness and improvements on the A96, A75 and A77 corridors.”
“There are issues with roads, ferries, rail and other public transport— the whole lot. As Sarah Boyack said, for Scotland to work, we need an industrial strategy that is joined to Scotland’s transport infrastructure. The Scottish Government needs to do better. 16:53 Fiona Hyslop: This debate provides an opportunity to highlight the progress that the Government has made in maintaining and improving the transport network to enhance connectivity, decarbonise road transport and generate sustainable economic growth. It has also allowed members of all parties to say where they have serious concerns and frustrations. We need to go further to support trunk roads in their constituencies.”
“Sarah Boyack talked about local government cuts and how they are creating problems with our local roads. There have been £329 million of cuts to core council funding between 2013-14 and 2025-26, and local roads are crumbling because of that. I will also mention the Stromeferry bypass in my area, where a landslip would create a 130-mile diversion—and there is a weak bridge on the same road. That is a lifeline route, yet the Scottish Government refuses to help. Mark Ruskell talked about public transport. There is a desperate need for better public transport. However, many areas in rural Scotland have no public transport at all. I know that I am running out of time. There are so many issues with all our transport systems—we have hardly touched on rail—that we could spend a whole day highlighting them.”
“Rhoda Grant: The Labour and Lib Dem Executive carried out improvements to the A9— there were deadly junctions that were improved. We certainly support the dualling of the A9. Jamie Halcro Johnston and Jamie Greene talked about fatalities on the road. Driver error is mitigated by the design of the road, which is something else that the Labour Party oversaw when it was in government. Finlay Carson and others talked about the A75 and A77. Those are crucial lifeline roads that also enable links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Daniel Johnson talked about an area that is close to my heart, which is the west of Scotland. The A82 is poorly served, and so is the A83. As Mark Ruskell mentioned, the Rest and Be Thankful is also a huge issue.”
“The Scottish Government needs to publish the advice that it has received from Transport Scotland officials relating to the financial viability and deliverability of the A9 dualling programme. At the start, the programme was estimated to cost £3.7 billion, and it was due to be completed in 2025. A decade on, it is only 13 per cent of the way towards completion. There has been consideration of bringing in private finance, but with some of the hardest sections of the A9 still to go, even the new 2035 target now looks optimistic. Jamie Halcro Johnston: Sarah Boyack did not take my intervention, so I will ask now whether you are embarrassed that, in the eight years when the Labour Party was in government, it did not dual even one mile of the A9. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, Mr Halcro Johnston.”
“Transport links are the very arteries through which our communities’ life-blood flows, both economically and socially. They are essential. Throughout Scotland, the areas with the poorest transport networks are those that are facing the greatest depopulation. Sarah Boyack was about the only person in the debate who mentioned ferries, which are the roads for our island communities. However, not a day goes by when there is not disruption of some sort to ferry services, which impacts on island economies and leads to depopulation. Daniel Johnson, Sarah Boyack and most other speakers in the debate talked about the A9. In that regard, I encourage the Scottish Government to introduce a duty of candour, as the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has suggested, because the public has lost confidence that progress will be made.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of parents now being able to request Gaelic school provision in their areas, what financial and resource support it is providing to local authorities to ensure that such requests can be considered and implemented. (S6O-05264)”
“What is the Scottish Government doing to support the industry and ensure that research and development is carried out? With climate change, more threats are emerging. We need to anticipate events and, where possible, support the industry before they occur. Mairi Gougeon: I could not agree more. As I tried to outline earlier, it is important to recognise that, with the changing climate, we face new threats and challenges all the time, so investment in innovation is hugely important. Some work is being funded through the marine fund Scotland, and we also provide funding for the Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre. We are trying to get ahead of the challenges, and predicting what is coming further down the line and addressing that will be so important in the future.”
“Will the First Minister commit to introducing a duty of candour for the A9 project, as recommended by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, to ensure that the Parliament and the public are fully informed about progress, delays and financial challenges in real time? The First Minister: The Government responded to that request by indicating that it would report regularly to Parliament, and that is exactly what the Government will do. MV Lord of the Isles (Replacement) 6.”
“It is clear that countries that tackle prostitution find that their society becomes more equal. Pay is more equal and caring responsibilities are shared. We should not be surprised by that, because, if one sex is commodified, it surely leads to the impression that they are less worthy than the other sex, which can use them as commodities. Because of that, prostitution impacts the whole of society and not just those who are exploited. Prostitution leads to women being treated as commodities. If we really want to change, we have the opportunity to do so, so let us grasp it and let us back the unbuyable bill. 15:57”
“The cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation carried out research on online pimping. Many platforms, from Vivastreet to OnlyFans, advertise this work. Women are sold in Scotland today on an industrial scale. Those sites try to suggest that they take steps to ensure that their sites are not used by traffickers and exploiters. However, a quick look tells us otherwise: identical photographs, the same email address and the same phone number are used for multiple women. Women are trafficked into Scotland and then around Scotland to feed the demand, and that is violence. France, Sweden, Ireland and many other countries have taken steps. They have implemented the policies that are included in Ash Regan’s bill. They have cut the rates of violence against women and they have furthered the cause of equality.”
“It is upsetting and frightening to hear their experiences and, once you have heard it, you cannot unhear it, but those are not excuses to do nothing. It is desperately sad that the Scottish Government, which recognises that prostitution is violence against women, cannot give its whole- hearted support to the bill. Every bill that comes through the Parliament is amended in one way or another. Many of the issues that are dealt with in the bill should already be in place—it should not need legislation. We should already have well- funded exit routes for those in prostitution if we really believe that it is violence against women. We should not be convicting women of soliciting offences if we really believe that it is violence against women. We should be allocating the blame for this abuse where it sits, which is squarely with the sex buyer.”
“We have seen the level of opposition to the bill, and it is often spurious. The whole trade is founded on misogyny—the idea that women can be sold as a commodity and the buyer feels free to use them in the way that they see fit, not as human beings to be treated with respect. The truth is that one cannot buy consent—so, basically, we are turning our back on rape on an industrial scale. Women in prostitution live in danger; it is not a normal job. None of us would want our daughter, sister or mother to be exploited in prostitution. If it would be wrong for our own, it is surely wrong for everybody else. The damage, both mental and physical, that prostitution causes is horrific. In this Parliament, there is no excuse to be unaware of that. Survivors have come and given us their testimony, yet, for the most part, MSPs have not heard them.”
“It promotes violence against women at a very early age, and that needs to change. We have an opportunity during these 16 days of activism to do something positive. This year, the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill has come to the Parliament. The bill seeks to decriminalise those in prostitution, criminalise sex buyers and provide routes out for those who are being exploited. The Scottish Government has accepted for more than two decades that prostitution is violence against women, yet we still criminalise women and do nothing about those who create the demand. Let us not shy away from the truth. Prostitution is a multibillion-pound industry worldwide, and those who are making their living from exploiting others will not easily give up their lucrative trade.”
“As we mark the 16 days of activism, we have a chance to reflect on the on-going impact of violence against women on our society. The sad truth is that 60 per cent of women who are murdered are murdered by someone who was supposed to love them. That statistic is shocking and seems to change little, regardless of the action that we have taken. We live in a society where misogyny is prevalent. Those perpetrating it are being emboldened, as is the case with most hate crimes, while hiding behind anonymous social media accounts and being empowered by manosphere influencers. Other members have highlighted what online pornography teaches our young people about sexual relationships: it not only influences boys in how they treat women; it influences girls as to what they should expect from relationships.”
“The Scottish Government also rejected an amendment to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have ensured that that could never happen again. Gillian Martin: If Rhoda Grant will take an intervention— Rhoda Grant: Do I have time? The Deputy Presiding Officer: No, there is no time in hand. Rhoda Grant: I am sorry. We need to ensure that, in future, priority is always given to community bids for leases and repowering opportunities for renewable energy on publicly owned land. That should be a right. The Conservatives bring the debate to the chamber having abjectly failed to decrease our dependence on hydrocarbons to prepare our country for the future and protect our planet for future generations. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Stuart McMillan joins us remotely. 15:36”
“We need to move our energy on to a different footing, and we have the opportunity to do that, but it is not being grasped. We know that communities get compensation for hosting renewables in their areas. We also know that those communities can develop their own renewables and get 35 times more from that investment—funds that they can use to tackle fuel poverty and build community resilience. That is community wealth building in practice. I was disappointed that the Scottish Government did not lease the Cruach Mhor wind farm in Argyll and Bute to Cowal Community Energy. That community energy company would have used the profits from the development to benefit its community. That is another wasted opportunity.”
“What that approach did was boost the profits of the multinational companies, with no return for the Scottish people. The £700 million that was raised at the auction could have been £8 billion to £10 billion, which would have covered the SNP’s black hole and left plenty to fund a just transition—something that the Scottish Government has failed to do. It could have funded our further education sector, which is crucial to a just transition. Colleges are the vehicles that will transition the skills of our workforce from oil and gas to renewables. What a wasted opportunity. We need to reset the energy market. Energy prices are totally dependent on oil and gas prices. Gillian Martin: Will Rhoda Grant take an intervention? Rhoda Grant: I am very short of time.”
“That is not news—we have known about it for decades—and yet we are still far too dependent on those resources. We need to increase the pace of our development of alternatives, and we need to develop other industries in order to have a just transition for our workers. However, that does not mean selling off our resources to the lowest bidder. The ScotWind auction is a case in point. I thought that the objective of an auction was to find the highest bidder. Whose idea was it to set a ceiling on the auction? The Government’s response to that question is that it was intended to leave more money in the bidders’ coffers for local workforce development and jobs. That is spurious, because there is no onus on those companies to do that.”
“It is clear that we will continue to depend on hydrocarbons for many years to come. These are precious resources, and we must redouble our efforts to stop using them for transport and heating and to develop substitutes for their use in products where there are not yet alternatives. Ahead of the debate, I believed that we all agreed that we should not use all our reserves. We need to recognise that these are finite resources and that, if we do not take steps to move away from their use, they will run out— something that the Conservatives and the SNP have ignored in today’s debate so far. The Conservatives and the SNP have also not taken account of damage caused to the planet by burning hydrocarbons and releasing more carbon into the atmosphere.”
“Indeed, when we asked the cabinet secretary in committee what issues she foresaw needing this legislation for, she could not name one. If it is about future proofing, surely, in the future, we should not be looking at passing legislation that is not compliant with the UNCRC. Therefore, this part of the bill should not be required. We do not think that the bill can be amended to make it compliant. We would need stand-alone, modern legislation that takes account of all of this. Therefore, we will be abstaining tonight. 16:14”
“Jenny Gilruth: I am listening to some of the points that Ms Grant has made in relation to part 2 of the bill and I have heard comments from members throughout the course of the afternoon that support her view, but she must also be cognisant of the fact that a number of organisations, including Together, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and UNICEF, support that element of the legislation. Why are they wrong, and why does Ms Grant believe that this cannot be resolved further at stage 2? Rhoda Grant: I believe that part 2 is in direct conflict with the UNCRC legislation. It calls into question why the 2024 act exists. We know that the UK Government sought the exception in the 2024 act because it went beyond devolved powers, but surely we have legislated for what happens in the future here in Scotland.”
“I do not think that the bill can be amended to make it compliant. Many members talked about part 2 of the bill, which takes the issue to a whole new level because it is not about religious observance or religious and moral education; it is about creating an opt-out from the 2024 act. Martin Whitfield pointed out that, in practice, it will give a public authority the ability to breach a child’s human rights. Surely that is not right. Public authorities are currently bound to act in compatibility with the 2024 act. Part 2 of the bill gives them an opt-out from that, which begs the question, what is the purpose of the 2024 act at all?”
“The legislative flaw with part 1 is that it amends the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which is an act of the UK Parliament and, as we know, all UK legislation is out of the scope of the 2024 act. Also, if we think back, 1980 was a time when it was still legal to belt children in school. It is really old legislation. Therefore, legislation that has been drafted to bring religious education under the scope of the 2024 act does not itself come under the scope of that act. Therefore, no one can challenge this bill under the 2024 act even though it is not compatible with the 2024 act. In my opinion, putting that right is beyond the scope of the bill and beyond the scope of the stage 2 process. We need to deal with this by introducing new, stand-alone legislation rather than amending an act that is outwith the scope of previous legislation.”
“When there is a conflict between the rights of the child and the rights of a parent to bring up their child, it is much more difficult to deal with, and it would take much more than a short stage 2 amendment to deal with those issues, as pointed out by Davy Russell. Pam Duncan-Glancy also spoke about teachers having to decide whether a child has the capacity to make those decisions. That is an extra burden on teachers. We need to make sure that the legislation works. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said in relation to article 12, everything we do must have children’s views at the heart of it. It begs the question of whether we need this legislation if we are already bound by that.”
“The bill conflates two subjects, one of which should have an opt-out while the other forms part of the curriculum and should not have an opt-out. Many of the members who spoke in the debate hold that view. Part 1 of the bill seeks to allow a child to opt in to religious observance or religious and moral education if their parents opt them out. On the face of it, it sets up a conflict between the parent and child—Miles Briggs spoke about that. However, to be fair, it is unlikely ever to be a reality because children are more likely to want to opt out against their parents’ wishes. Parents would rightly be concerned that children be given a right to refuse to practise their parents’ chosen religion, and I do not believe that that element could easily be added at stage 2, because it was not properly scrutinised at stage 1.”
“It is easy to see why people who practise a different faith might not want their children to take part in such religious observance. Many members talked about religious and moral education being education about faiths and practices. It builds understanding of all the main faiths and beliefs, giving children a deeper understanding of what their peers might believe. Such education provides knowledge and, I hope, cuts through myths and builds better understanding of other faiths, because it does not ask children and young people to practise those faiths. Davy Russell pointed out that if there are grey areas with regard to religious and moral education, those could be dealt with in guidance rather than in legislation.”
“My computer is not working, but I have a back-up for my notes—sorry. That was an interesting debate. Many people have expressed concerns about the bill, and those concerns were highlighted today. It is clear that even the members of the committee who supported the bill heavily caveated that support. Therefore, there is much to deal with. The bill was supposed to bring RO and RME into line with the UNCRC, which is something that we could have signed up to. Unfortunately, the bill does not really do that. Martin Whitfield, Pam Duncan-Glancy, Davy Russell and others pointed out that the bill conflates religious observance with religious and moral education. Religious observance is taking part in religious practice, prayers, religious instructions and the like.”
“Rural health and care services are left to depend on expensive agency staff and, in many cases, those services cannot run at all. All of that leads people to leave, so the problems create a downward spiral of depopulation. Centralisation happens in all aspects of daily life in rural Scotland. We saw it with the centralisation of police and fire services, which have since retreated from those areas. Police stations have closed and retained fire stations are not staffed to a level that allows them to go to an emergency. Those issues are replicated throughout all of rural Scotland. We need to find solutions that provide people in my region—and in Dumfries and Galloway and elsewhere in rural Scotland—with equitable access to services. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sharon Dowey. 18:04”
“I recently heard of a mother who, just a couple of days after delivering her baby by caesarean section, had to make a four-and-a-half-hour journey by train, on her own, carrying her newborn baby. I know that there are similar issues in Stranraer. Housing was another theme that came across as a major issue when we heard from witnesses at the committee meeting. There is little or no affordable housing in rural Scotland for local people in order to allow them to stay in the areas in which they were brought up, so many are being forced to move away. Housing was also raised as an issue in relation to recruiting staff to provide essential services. People would apply for posts and some would even start work, only for them to find that they could not find a home, so they were forced to leave.”