Fergus Ewing
Independent · Scotland
“Last October, the Chinese renewables company Ming Yang announced an investment of £1,500 million in my constituency, which would initially create 1,500 direct jobs and lead to 4,000 jobs in phase 3.”
“As her cabinet secretary, I thank her for her diligence as a minister and congratulate her on the successful passage last week of a vital piece of Government legislation that was also supported across parties. I am glad that the bill that we have worked on together will—as I hope—pass this evening. It sends a strong signal.”
“I turn to the concerns of stakeholders, and particularly the teaching trade unions, with whom I have spent a lot of time in the past three years. First, I am sympathetic to some of the concerns from the teaching trade unions.”
“I will embarrass the minister now with all this praise in front of his colleagues, but he is known to be pro-business, and that is a good thing. Sadly, he is an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of disdain and disinterest.”
“Most practitioners will not need training, but those that do, definitely need it. Therefore, we need a focus on the training and on ensuring that it is available to all practitioners who require it.”
“Its work was diligent, detailed and critical to providing the scrutiny that allowed the bill to be improved. I pay tribute to Douglas Ross. He has been a diligent parliamentarian throughout, and I agree with him on what the Parliament needs to aspire to being when it comes to how it works and how contributions are made.”
The complete record
Every one of 452 lines we hold for Fergus Ewing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“Last October, the Chinese renewables company Ming Yang announced an investment of £1,500 million in my constituency, which would initially create 1,500 direct jobs and lead to 4,000 jobs in phase 3. Rumours now suggest that Mr Miliband of the United Kingdom Government is about to reject the investment on the grounds of national security, but members of the industry in Scotland say that a technical solution to those concerns can and should be found through an open tendering competition by the UK Government. Will the First Minister—as Alex Salmond most certainly would have done—move heaven and earth to secure the largest-ever such investment in Scotland, and will he persuade the UK Government that to do anything other than approve the investment would be an act of abject betrayal?”
“The original legislation set the framework; this bill improves it and makes it more flexible, responsive and more likely to succeed in practice. The bill is not only a technical amendment; it is another step towards a fairer and more sustainable system of local government finance—one in which communities are better supported, local decisions can be made locally, and the success of places, including their success as visitor destinations, helps them to sustain themselves into the future. Once again, I am pleased to support the bill on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 16:38”
“The reality is that tourism brings both benefits and costs. Although it supports jobs and local economies, it also places demands on roads, waste services, public spaces and local infrastructure. Giving councils the ability to respond to those demands and to reinvest in their communities is not only reasonable but necessary. It is about moving away from a system in which local government is overly dependent on central funding and towards a more balanced, empowered and resilient model. The bill alone does not solve that challenge, but it is part of a broader direction of travel that signals that we trust local authorities and are willing to give them the tools that they need. Importantly, that has been done in a way that reflects what has been learned.”
“For far too long, local authorities in Scotland have been asked to do more with less, and they have had limited powers to raise revenue locally. That has had real consequences for services, infrastructure and the resilience of our communities. The Scottish Greens have been clear that that needs to change. Through successive budgets and negotiations, we have pushed to expand the fiscal powers that are available to councils. That has included council tax reforms—new bands will be introduced in 2026-27 to make the system fairer and more progressive. We have also supported measures that represent a shift in approach, such as the visitor levy, and we recognise that local areas should be able to generate revenue in ways that reflect local pressures and opportunities. That is exactly what the bill supports.”
“I will also express gratitude to Sarah Boyack, who has been a consistent and constructive voice for climate action on the Labour benches. Again, I have learned from her approach and hope to bring what I have learned into session 7. The debate on the bill has been constructive and important. Although this is an amending bill, it speaks to a much bigger question of how we properly resource local government in Scotland. The changes before us today—particularly the addition of a flat rate option—are sensible. They give councils more flexibility to design a visitor levy that works in their area, and they reflect engagement with the industry to make the policy more practical and deliverable. However, we should see the bill in its wider context.”
“I hope that there can be a fresh start and a fresh approach in which we value what is, after all, one of the most important industries—if not the most important industry—not just for the Highlands, but for many other parts of Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 16:34 Ariane Burgess: Before I get to my points about the bill, I will say a few words about some of my colleagues who are speaking in the chamber for the final time. I came to know Evelyn Tweed as a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, specifically by observing her determination to ensure fairness in the approach that the Scottish Housing Regulator takes to all forms of social housing, especially community‑led housing. I learned a lot from her approach and the tenacity that she showed in that work.”
“However, Covid happened two weeks later and I spent the rest of the time sitting in conference calls from 9 until 6. I never turned down any request for a meeting. At that time, businesses were on their uppers. Businesses that were worth £10 million could not be sold for £100,000. People were absolutely at the end of their tethers. Some people died—I could name them, but that would not be appropriate. The overhanging debt from that is still being worked out and dealt with. Brexit took their staff away, Covid took their reserves away, and this session of Parliament has sapped their spirit and confidence. That is really dreadful. The minister is not responsible for that, but I am afraid that he is part of a Government that has dealt with tourism in that way.”
“Anyway, I praise the minister. This will be my last speech—in this session of Parliament. If I may say so, I very much look forward to having the opportunity to continue to serve in the next session, which will make it seven sessions in a row. I say that seriously, because this session of Parliament has, by any standards, been one in which the tourism sector has not been dealt a fair hand of cards—and that is putting it very mildly. I was the tourism minister on two occasions, from 2011 to 2016 and then from 2020 to 2021. The latter time, I offered to do it—I told the then First Minister that I would—because, frankly, I thought that it would be an easy ride to the election. It is great fun working with people in tourism, because they are so optimistic.”
“I will embarrass the minister now with all this praise in front of his colleagues, but he is known to be pro-business, and that is a good thing. Sadly, he is an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of disdain and disinterest. I am afraid to say that that was evident in the passage of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill, but not only then; it was also evident during the passage of the short-term lets legislation and in the business rates fiasco, when it was proven beyond any doubt that the methodology that the Scottish assessors employed for calculating the rateable value of self- catering properties was nuts. That approach was rejected by England, and it was completely nuts. Incidentally, that matter remains unresolved, because the assessors have ignored the criticism. They are completely beyond accountability, as so many quangos are.”
“I congratulate the minister on having the gumption to do something that does not happen a great deal by introducing the bill with an expedited procedure. I think that it was me who, in speaking to a business motion—from memory, it was on 18 December—suggested that that procedure should be used. That was not because of any brilliance or foresight on my part; it was because Fiona Campbell had, through her research, worked out that an expedited bill appeared to be the appropriate vehicle. I congratulate the minister, because he took that up and he listened. He did the right thing by listening and, by implication, accepting that a mistake had been made. I guess that it could be said that it was made by us all, although I voted against the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill. However, the minister is due congratulations.”
“The bill strengthens Scotland’s visitor levy framework so that, where local authorities choose to introduce a scheme, it is fair and workable and reflects local priorities; supports sustainable tourism; empowers local decision making; and ensures that the benefits of tourism are shared across communities. I commend the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill to Parliament. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed. 16:05”
“The council’s evidence emphasised the need for decisions to be taken at the right level of government, and at the right time, to support best practice and avoid taking “a ‘one size fits all’ approach” that would not reflect the diverse needs of communities in both urban and rural areas. The council said that the visitor levy “ensures that funds raised locally can be reinvested directly in maintaining and improving visitor infrastructure” and that “decisions must be informed by clear and robust economic and destination management data”. In ensuring that those decisions are right for our local economies, an important step in the process is local consultation to ensure that key stakeholders continue to engage effectively through co-design to meet the local needs that are being assessed.”
“Therefore, I have also instructed my officials to begin working with VisitScotland to ensure that the statutory guidance is updated and revised to take account of the changes delivered by the bill and for that to be available to support the implementation across Scotland later this year. I mentioned the importance that the Scottish Government places on engagement with key stakeholders who will deliver visitor levy schemes in practice, and I want to share with the chamber a contribution from Argyll and Bute Council, which responded to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s call for views.”
“Although I resisted that amendment for various reasons, I gave the member an assurance that I would ask my officials to work with VisitScotland colleagues to consider how that detail could be brought out in the revised guidance. I am happy to give that assurance again today. Throughout the process, our aim has been to provide a framework that is proportionate, clear and accessible. We want local authorities to be confident that their schemes reflect local economic assessments and that the language and guidance used will support high levels of understanding, compliance and trust.”
“I was also pleased at stage 2 to accept an amendment lodged by Tim Eagle, which will require ministers, in carrying out the three-year review of the operation of the act, to assess the impact of visitor levy schemes on businesses, communities and tourism in rural areas. Last week, during our first stage 3 proceedings, amendments were agreed that mean that the bill will now give local authorities the option to allow accommodation providers to deduct and retain a proportion of the levy to help to meet reasonable administration costs. During those stage 3 proceedings, Stephen Kerr sought an amendment that would require local authority annual reports to include an assessment of the impact of the scheme on visitor numbers, length of visitor stay and the viability of tourism businesses.”
“As I mentioned at the start of the debate, this is a technical bill, and one key measure ensures that a levy return for a given period will set out the levy payable for overnight stays that take place within the period in question instead of the date at which the overnight stay was booked. However, the bill does much more, and I want to highlight a few amendments that have resulted from the rigorous process that the bill went through, the co-development that took place with key stakeholders and, as I mentioned, the input from members across the chamber. At stage 2, we added provisions so that, once regulations are in place, accommodation providers will be able to amend submitted returns to correct errors.”
“The bill is very strong on the consultation that local authorities will have to carry out, and I am absolutely sure that local businesses and business representative organisations in any local authority that is considering introducing a visitor levy will engage effectively and thoroughly with the relevant local authority to get a levy that suits local businesses. The bill also clarifies how the levy will apply when accommodation is sold through booking platforms or tour operators. In those cases, the levy will be calculated on the price at first sale, which gives accommodation providers certainty about the amount due and avoids any confusion when bookings involve third parties.”
“I congratulate the minister at least for introducing the bill, but would it not have been better, rather than having two options, if there was simply one option—a flat rate? Does the additional option not really amount to a bit of a capitulation to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities, and will it not result in lingering confusion about which charge will be applied? Ivan McKee: Respectfully, I do not agree with Fergus Ewing’s comments. It was important that all stakeholders, the business community and local authorities were involved in the process and that there was flexibility to design a bill that meets local circumstances.”
“As we pass Calum’s law, let us end with Calum’s words: “The children aren’t naughty, they’re just scared.” Let us put that to an end. The Deputy Presiding Officer : That concludes the debate on Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. It is time to move on to the next item of business. There will be a brief pause to allow members on the front benches to change over. Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill”
“I do not think that either of us would necessarily have imagined that that on- going relationship might have resulted in a bill such as this. Ultimately, politics is about interpersonal relationships, dialogue, identifying where there is common cause and doing something about it. I hope that this bill stands as testament to that. This is my second member’s bill. I do not know whether two for two is a record. If this bill passes, as I hope it will, I will be proud of it. However, above all else, I repeat my thanks to Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger: you are absolutely outstanding campaigners and you are delivering change. I know that I should speak through the chair, but please forgive me, Deputy Presiding Officer. All of us in the Parliament owe you a debt of gratitude. The cabinet secretary stole my closing line.”
“Most practitioners will not need training, but those that do, definitely need it. Therefore, we need a focus on the training and on ensuring that it is available to all practitioners who require it. We also need to look very carefully at the fact that while there has been a huge expansion in the number of children identified as having additional support needs, the level of resource—particularly the number of specialist, trained, additional support needs teachers—has declined. However, I also want to thank the Government, because this has been a really rewarding process. The communication has been constructive, on- going and focused. In particular, I thank Jenny Gilruth. I remember the two of us as very newly elected members back in 2016, sitting around the table at the away day in Stirling for the Education and Skills Committee.”
“It is a difficult topic. However, I have no doubt that the bill has been improved by their engagement and has tighter definitions. I am also mindful of the bureaucracy and workload about which they have raised concerns, and of the on-going resourcing and support that teachers and classroom assistants require. Let us be in no doubt that this is not the final word on the topic. Indeed, following 7 May, it needs to be at the top of the to-do list for whoever will form the next Government, because there is work to be done to implement the bill’s intent. We need the guidance to remain a living document that is updated so that it reflects best practice. Above all else, it must be a practical document that everyone in the classroom can use. We need continuing professional development for all practitioners in the classroom.”
“Its work was diligent, detailed and critical to providing the scrutiny that allowed the bill to be improved. I pay tribute to Douglas Ross. He has been a diligent parliamentarian throughout, and I agree with him on what the Parliament needs to aspire to being when it comes to how it works and how contributions are made. That is very important. I pay tribute to the non-Government bills unit. When we think about what the Parliament should be, the member’s bill process is critical. Roz Thomson and her team do an outstanding job. I pay tribute to the children’s commissioner and third sector organisations—in particular, Enable— for the work that they have done in shining a light on the issue and providing the impetus. I also thank the trade unions. They have not always been welcoming of the proposal, and I understand why.”
“The passage of the bill has been a genuinely cross-party effort, and the bill is better as a result of not just that engagement but the overall parliamentary process: the definitions are tighter; there is flexibility in the way that it is framed; and the scope is right, because nursery classes have been removed from it. Above all else, as members from across parties have pointed out, it will make our children safer, provide clarity for practice and treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. On that cross-party effort, Miles Briggs’s contribution in particular has been very helpful. He has taken a real interest in the topic, as has Willie Rennie, whom I also thank for his on-going dialogue. Indeed, I thank the entire Education, Children and Young People Committee.”
“As Calum put it, the children “aren’t naughty; they’re just scared.” I agree with that. That is why the Scottish Government will vote in support of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill today. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Daniel Johnson, the member in charge, to wind up the debate. 15:51 Daniel Johnson: The challenge in summing up a stage 3 debate for my own member’s bill is to prevent that from becoming akin to a gushing Oscar acceptance speech. I will therefore try to marshal my thank yous and to make some points. I begin not just by thanking members for their contributions this afternoon but by thanking the Parliament more broadly.”
“As her cabinet secretary, I thank her for her diligence as a minister and congratulate her on the successful passage last week of a vital piece of Government legislation that was also supported across parties. I am glad that the bill that we have worked on together will—as I hope—pass this evening. It sends a strong signal. It signals to teachers and staff that we will support them to de-escalate challenging situations in schools. It signals to parents that their children matter and that, when something happens at school that involves their child, they should be told about that timeously. More importantly, it signals to all our children that they should not be restrained or secluded at school. I am pleased that one of the final bills that the Parliament will pass in this session relates to children and to giving effect to their rights.”
“He said this weekend that he did not think that it was his job as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee to give the Government an easy time. I say to Mr Ross that absolutely no one in the Scottish Government thinks that he has given ministers an easy time so, on that, he has absolutely succeeded. I also commend the diligent work of members across parties—in particular, Miles Briggs, Roz McCall, Martin Whitfield, Paul O’Kane, Ross Greer and Willie Rennie—for their work with the Government on a range of educational issues. If you will indulge me, Presiding Officer, I will also pay tribute to Natalie Don-Innes, who will be stepping down. I was not able to contribute to the debate that she led last week, in which lots of accolades were paid to her.”
“I discussed with my officials only yesterday that, when we are creating a range of guidance, such as on attendance, behaviour and mobile phone use, we also need to step back and ask what needs to go, and to be mindful of the workload that they create for our schools. Publishing reams of non-statutory guidance arguably does not create the behaviour change that we need. That substantiates the need for Daniel Johnson’s bill, because we need that behaviour change. The review guidance update that officials published this morning covers the rationale for Mr Johnson’s bill. Paul O’Kane was quite right to reflect on the collegiate spirit that has characterised engagement on the bill throughout its passage. In that spirit, I pay tribute to Douglas Ross.”
“Mr Mason’s amendment on the definitions speaks to the issue being revisited in the future, which addresses a concern that the teaching trade unions highlighted about the broadness of the category. Thirdly, amendments were agreed to at stage 3 to support things that will be non-reportable in order to minimise the workload burden on teachers. That also addresses a concern that the teaching trade unions highlighted and to which I was sympathetic. We heard from Willie Rennie about the churn of guidance that the Government produces. I remind members that much of the raft of guidance that the Government has produced in the education space, particularly in the past three years, has been at the behest of the Opposition parties. However, we need to consider the matter.”
“I turn to the concerns of stakeholders, and particularly the teaching trade unions, with whom I have spent a lot of time in the past three years. First, I am sympathetic to some of the concerns from the teaching trade unions. We rehearsed some of this in the stage 1 evidence session at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, but I have engaged directly with all the teaching trade unions, including as recently as last Thursday, and the Government has ensured— working with Mr Johnson, of course, whose bill it is—that the teaching trade unions will be consultees in relation to the statutory guidance. That is hugely important. Secondly, a number of Scottish Government amendments last week spoke to some of those concerns, and an amendment by John Mason made it clearer that the proposed changes will not apply to nursery settings.”
“I will respond to some of the comments that members have made in the debate. First, I have some bad news for Miles Briggs: this is not the final education debate in the current session of Parliament. In fact, his colleague Pam Gosal will be leading a members’ debate tomorrow afternoon on mobile phones in schools, and he can be assured that I will attend that debate. I absolutely love that Beth Morrison—the “Queen Bee”—has ensured that we are all wearing our crown badges today. After the stage 1 debate, Beth presented me with a tiara, but I did not think that it would be appropriate to wear a tiara in the chamber, so I have not come wearing it today. Miles Briggs spoke to the importance of the statutory guidance, on which I firmly agree. The consultation will sit alongside that statutory guidance.”
“The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the bill. Scotland’s children deserve consistency, openness and safety in every classroom, and the bill is an important step towards making that happen. 15:45 Jenny Gilruth: I start by making it absolutely clear that all of Scotland’s children deserve and have the right to feel safe in our schools. They should not be restrained or secluded. The only occasions on which that should be considered are when there is an immediate risk of injury to the child or others, as we heard from Paul McLennan and others, and the cross-party support for Daniel Johnson’s bill shows that the Parliament shares that view. I thank members for their really constructive and thoughtful approach to today’s debate and indeed to the bill process as a whole.”
“Does the member agree not only that Mr Ross is an outstanding and fearless parliamentarian—as we must all agree, whatever our views—but that he has, as I know, been prepared to work across parties in order to try to achieve things for Scotland? Is that not an example for us for the next session of Parliament? Roz McCall: I thank Fergus Ewing for that intervention. I cannot disagree with a single word that he said. In the work that I have tried to take forward with the minister Natalie Don-Innes, we have tried very hard to work on a cross-party basis, and that is definitely something that we should be looking to do. To be clear, I note that no child should face restraint or seclusion unless there is truly no other option. For those reasons, putting the law into practice will be crucial.”
“Shona Robison: We have provided record resources to local government, whether in rural areas or urban areas, and it is up to local authorities to determine their priorities. We have struck a number of deals to ensure that the borrowing capacity of local authorities can be used alongside accelerator deals to provide additional investment in communities. We already have deals along those lines with many local authorities, and we are prepared to discuss such deals with other local authorities that are interested. Third Sector Rent and Council Tax Arrears Services (Support) 4.”
“Thank you very much indeed for that advice, Presiding Officer. Whether in Lothian, where the backlog is £69 million, in Highland, where it is £233 million, or anywhere else, particularly in rural Scotland, roads and bridges are being closed because of safety issues. In my patch, Neil Gordon is a farmer who used to use the Balnaan bridge, but, because it is closed, he now has to take a detour of up to 100 miles after a day’s farming. How can it be fair that rural residents face their livelihoods ending at the same time as £226 million is being spent on building new cycle lanes in cities that no one uses? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I ask the cabinet secretary to respond on matters relating to the question at hand.”
“Therefore, we must ensure that that capital is invested in all the priorities, including the affordable housing supply programme, in which there is a £900 million investment, which I would have thought Fergus Ewing would welcome. Public services are essential to Scotland’s wellbeing, and the budget supports their continued improvement and reform. The budget provides a record £22.5 billion for our national health service, supporting improvements in waiting times and general practitioner access, and expanding high street walk-in centres. I was pleased to see that Lochee was part of the First Minister’s announcement yesterday. The development there will provide real benefit to people across Dundee as part of a £36 million roll-out offering same-day, no-appointment GP care.”
“For two years, the Nairn bypass has been ready to go into the procurement stage for its completion. However, it will not go into procurement until 2029. Given that the capital budget is the highest ever— £7,600 million—can the cabinet secretary understand that people in Nairn and the Highlands in general feel that they are the forgotten tribe in Scotland? Shona Robison: That is far from the case. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has kept the Parliament updated about all those important projects, and our commitment to them remains as solid as ever. Fergus Ewing is right to highlight the capital budget, but, of course, it has decreased over the course of this session of Parliament because of the cuts to the capital budget by the United Kingdom Government.”
“Richard Lochhead: Fergus Ewing will be aware that there is a review of business rates in the sectors that have been referred to, which is independently chaired and will take place over the next months and years. In the meantime, the Scottish Government has introduced transitional relief in our budget. We offer 15 per cent relief for properties that are liable for the basic or intermediate property rates in those sectors, capped at £110,000 per business per year. The Government is taking action to cap the increases that the member referred to, which is why I urge all members from all parties—or no party—to support the budget. Economic Strategy 8.”
“Yesterday, at a rural leadership meeting, we heard from a hotelier on the west coast. They are doing extremely well, with bookings all year round, but after the increase in business rates, hardly anything is left by way of profit, and it is barely worth continuing. Businesses will close. Is it not the case, as I have just discovered in the past few days, that the estimates on which the Government relies for the amount of money that it will raise from its current proposals contain no allowance whatsoever for the closure of businesses on any significant scale? If that approach is wrong, and businesses close, surely the budget will end up with less money being brought in than would be if the business rates were set at a fair and affordable level. Is that not only wrong but financially reckless and counterproductive?”
“A great deal more capital expenditure was involved in floating offshore wind, given the more challenging conditions. As to the detail of what discussions the Scottish Government had with the Crown Estate about a cap or otherwise, I was not a minister at the time. If there is any information on that, we will provide it to Audit Scotland as part of the audit that it is taking forward.”
“When anyone sells anything at an auction, the purpose, surely, is to get the best price. That is the point of an auction. Why did the Crown Estate set a cap at all? Why did it set it at £10,000 per square kilometre of the seabed? Why did it then increase that cap by 900 per cent to £100,000? Was the Scottish Government involved in that, and did it agree to set a cap in the first place? If so, why on earth did it do so? That decision has cost the taxpayer in Scotland billions of pounds in wasted, lost revenue. Gillian Martin: Obviously, we cannot compare licences for floating offshore wind with those for fixed-bottom-type options, so it is unfair to talk about the issue in those terms, if people are doing that. Some people are looking to what England and Wales are using as their cap, but those are different developments.”
“Of course a marine assessment is required; it is required under regulation 7 of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007. I just looked at it—it takes about 30 seconds to look it up. This is one of the worst applications that I have ever seen, and it must never go ahead. If all parties join together—including the SNP, which I used to serve, and did so for 50 years—we will see off this proposal and spare the people of Moray and Nairn any further misery. [Applause.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. I remind those in the gallery that this is a meeting in public, not a public meeting, and that participation, either through applause or the opposite, is to be discouraged. I call Gillian Martin to respond to the debate. You have around seven minutes, cabinet secretary. 18:36”
“The cabinet secretary and I have both visited Aventus Energy; I know the estate that is involved, and I know that there is extensive land and unused capacity there, as David Ross has illustrated in his excellent work. The project is not required at all. When I asked the Crown Estate whether it was required, it said, “We cannot express an opinion. We are only the Crown Estate.” Well, goodness me. I will conclude, as I have only 20 seconds left, but I would like to say a lot more. I want to pay tribute to the people who have come down here for the debate—that shows just how much anger there is. This is much worse than Flamingo Land—this application should never get anywhere. Incidentally, it is not a live application; there is nothing to prevent the Scottish Government from stopping this now, because there is no application to prejudice.”
“I say to the cabinet secretary that there will be freedom of information requests on this matter, so she should open the books and allow us to see the whole story, because if there was any such involvement or consultation, I would like to know about it. Equally, if there was not, how can it be that in Scotland we extend, through our enterprise company, and through Crown Estate Scotland, which allocated £41,000 at an earlier stage, £2 million without any involvement from the minister? Is that not wrong? If I were the minister, I would be asking, “What is going on here?” Do we need this project at all? I do not think so, because we have storage in ports and storage on land.”
“I also found out that Scottish Enterprise has extended a grant of £1.83 million to the company, most of which has been paid out, despite the fact that that is about six times more than the company’s net worth. How did that happen? When I asked Adrian Gillespie of Scottish Enterprise— someone with whom I have worked over the years, for whom I have great respect and who has done great things for Scotland—what due diligence was done, there were no clear answers, other than that the grant specialist team had looked again at the application and checked it off. When I asked whether the Scottish Government had been told, I got a very carefully worded answer—we have seen a bit of that recently—and I am not sure whether the Scottish Government was involved or consulted in any way.”
“I found out that OSG’s net assets were £207,000 in 2023 but had fallen to £131,000 in April 2024. As a former energy minister, I know that no project manager of any billion‑pound project would for a moment conceive of taking on a contractor in the supply chain that was a paper company and did not have the capacity, if it failed to carry out the work, to make recompense for that failure. Any project manager who did so would be sacked— none would do so. I asked Mr Rowley to explain why he thought that he would get contracts, but I got no answer. That leads me to assume that the intention is not to carry out the development, but to get the permission and sell on. Incidentally, no accounts for the company have been lodged for this year— they are late.”
“Of the many reasons that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Roman civilisation, one is that it bequeathed to us the principles of natural justice. One such principle is audi alteram partem: one must listen to both sides of the case. When I, like other members, was inundated with expressions of concern about this particular development, the levels of which were unprecedented in my 26 years as a constituency member, I sought a meeting with Mr Rowley, the head of OSG, to get his side of the case. Before the meeting, I availed myself of the opportunity to look at the company accounts, which are publicly available, and found that it is a microcompany. Microcompanies put in limited accounts to save money; they are generally not able to grow fast and have no, or limited, potential for raising money.”
“The contact with the First Minister was made by the Lord Advocate because it was appropriate for the Lord Advocate to clarify that I had no involvement in operational decisions and to reinforce the need for strict observance of the contempt of court principles. That protects the integrity of proceedings and public confidence.”
“Having recused herself, would it not at least have been prudent and politic, if an intimation was to be made to the First Minister, for that to have been made by the named senior prosecutor in charge of leading the case? Had that been done, the Lord Advocate probably would not have been here today facing a number of pretty obvious and serious questions to which the public are entitled to have direct answers. The Lord Advocate: Mr Ewing is correct about the process that follows on the service of an indictment. It is correct to say that charges can be amended and that they can be added to, in terms of narrative and the like. Mr Ewing is a well- qualified lawyer and he understands all the issues surrounding an indictment, its contents and the legal rules that apply to how it is processed during the course of a prosecution.”
“The Lord Advocate has emphasised repeatedly that not only did she recuse herself from any involvement in the decision-making process in this particular case but she issued the minute in her name only because that was the fact and the indictment was settled. However, does she not agree with me that the terms of the indictment can be altered after service? That is trite law. Charges can be added with permission of the court and charges can be removed. I am not making any allegations against the Lord Advocate, and I want to put on the record that, in my dealings with her, I have always found her to be someone of absolute integrity, but I have what I think is surely a legitimate question.”