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 4 of 10.
“The social justice secretary answered a question in some detail on the issue in the Parliament, setting out the importance of dialogue in ensuring that the legitimate issues and practical concerns that I understand the Highland Council will debate today are properly and fully addressed. The social justice secretary also had a conversation with the UK Government on Tuesday morning, in which she set out the range of practical questions that must be explored to address the issues that Mr Ewing is, understandably, raising on behalf of his constituents. However, I have to say—and I say this for transparency in the Parliament—that there has been no substantive, detailed response to the legitimate points that have been made.”
“Cameron barracks in Inverness is close to the city centre, near two schools and lies in a residential area. Many constituents harbour serious concerns about the Home Office’s plans to house up to 300 unchecked males of whatever colour—their concerns are not born of racism. Will the First Minister do something that he has not done so far and publicly and expressly call on the United Kingdom Government to rethink those proposals, to abandon Cameron barracks as a location and to work positively with the Scottish Government to come up with a fair, reasonable and suitable location, which many people of compassion in Inverness feel is the right approach? The First Minister: I assure Mr Ewing that we are engaging constructively with the United Kingdom Government on the housing of asylum seekers, and particularly on the Cameron barracks proposal.”
“We are here to represent communities, but we are also here to reassure our communities, where at all possible, that asylum seekers can be part of our community. Indeed, they are part of our communities in many parts of Scotland, and the people who live here currently and those who may move here in the future can work and live together very well if practical matters are dealt with. The Presiding Officer: We have much interest, so I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: Mr Ewing’s suggestion that a UK minister visit Inverness is a very sensible one. I would suggest that it is perhaps something that should have been done before the decision was made. It is very important that people from local communities are able to have their voice heard on this. I am sure that local representatives will do that at council level and in the Scottish Parliament, but the UK ministers have a responsibility, too. We are here to represent our communities, and, of course, local residents have a number of concerns. I believe that many of those concerns are based on a concern about local service provision. That is exactly why I have written to the Home Secretary twice to lay out specific concerns, and I am certainly more than happy to make those letters available.”
“Does the cabinet secretary suggest, as I believe, that Mr Norris, the relevant UK Government minister, should visit Inverness, give an explanation to people there and be open to questions from the press about what will happen and when, not least because the barracks are extremely cold and unfit for human occupation at the current time? The Home Office admitted that this morning, yet it said that it would be all ready in a couple of weeks’ time—I will believe that when I see it. I want to work with the cabinet secretary. I would like to see the two Governments working together— The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. Fergus Ewing: —but, above all, having a rational, open discussion, so that we do not get involved in charges of racism here, which we all want to avoid. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing.”
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to have a rational, calm discussion about these matters and that people have genuine concerns, which are not at all born out of racism but rather arise because of various practical matters that must be considered rationally and thoroughly? Does the cabinet secretary also agree that it would have been better had there been a prior negotiation between the two Governments about which locations are suitable and which are unsuitable? Does she understand that Inverness has a very strong view that the central location of the barracks, which are beside a residential development and a school, is not the right location? Will she publish the letter that she shared with the UK Government? I had a briefing on the matter with the Home Office this morning.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: It is never a good idea to give the chair warning of the potential for incurring the chair’s wrath.”
“In 40 years of land management, not everything that I have done regarding land management supported the Government’s objectives. For example, on climate change, the last thing that I would do is introduce beavers all over the countryside to eat the trees that we have spent years funding. I do now know why we now consider that beavers are better for trees than the deer that we spent years trying to kill. The Government is in a position to make the decision, but I struggle to understand whether it would prepare guidance in the short term. My concern is that we could be waiting another 10 years and that, by then, it will be time for another land reform bill, because the other ones will be considered irrelevant. I will leave my comments there, Presiding Officer, so that I do not incur your wrath at this stage, as I may do later.”
“Does Mr Mountain agree with me that, if Ariane Burgess’s amendment had existed in law some years ago, the aluminium smelter at Fort William would have been shut? It was a foreign owner that kept it alive. Edward Mountain: I am not sure that I will quite go with Fergus Ewing on that point. There is a question about the agreements that were made with the foreign owner to keep the aluminium smelter, which may come back to haunt the Government in the future. Running, say, a 20,000-hectare estate will cost in the region of half a million pounds each year, and that comes from taxed income. Therefore, it is a true investment. I really do not like amendment 15. Although I understand the aim of Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 76, it relies on the Government approving of the future management of land.”
“Angela Constance: Yes, indeed—Mr Ewing makes a constructive point about the use of technology, which can get a quicker and better result for those whom we seek to serve and can be safer for front-line staff. I will pursue the point that he raises. Business Motion 14:19”
“On Sunday, I contacted SSEN on behalf of constituents who had lost power. I thank SSEN for its exemplary and swift response in restoring power and the work that hundreds of operatives have done. In a conference call yesterday with SSEN senior executives, they explained that the use of drones enables them to check out where the faults lie much more quickly now than in the old days of manual checking. Will the cabinet secretary explore with the resilience team how to work with SSEN and Scottish Power on the best use of drones to further speed up the process of reconnection? Does the cabinet secretary agree that drones, at least airborne ones, are quite useful?”
“I wanted to use my time, which is drawing to a close, to say that, in the short term, we must see a proper, fair and decent service—and that, certainly, an apology from the chief executive and chair of ScotRail is overdue. 13:21”
“standing on girls, pushing them out of the way, one girl was almost pushed off the train and was grabbed by a leader ... it became terrifying and ... dangerous”. Girls were physically sick and fainted, were “asleep on the floor” and “were overheating, it was like a third world travel experience.” I could go on. It is an outrageous example of a complete failure to provide a service. I wrote personally to every executive at ScotRail—by snail mail, so that they could not deny that they had got the letters. I have not heard from any of them. They are all well paid; they have job titles whose functions seem to overlap. Goodness knows what they do.”
“I want to refer to a constituency complaint—a profoundly serious one—that I received recently and which I am pursuing with ScotRail, which has not yet replied even though I contacted the company on 22 September. On Sunday 21 September, a party of brownies and guides numbering 60 in all was travelling back to Inverness from a trip to Dynamic Earth. They had booked seats but, when they got on the train, there were no reservations. My constituent wrote: “by the time the girls got their suitcases on there was NO seats. the doors shut ... the girls were all standing. We managed to get some to sit on the floor as they were ... feeling faint due to the squashing. We were all standing but making the most of it - assuming folks would leave at Perth”. However, that did not happen. Instead, “LOADS of people pushed onto the train ...”
“The cabinet secretary has heard me making those points time after time after time. I know that the debate is about railways, but many speakers have mentioned roads, and I hope that it is in order to ask the cabinet secretary to indicate, in her response, when this autumn the promised statement about funding will be made and when there will be confirmation of the details of the dualling. Industry sources have told me that it can be done earlier than the projected revised target date of 2035, and, with a capital budget of around £5 billion a year, there is no shortage of money to do it in that time. One way in which there could be big improvements would be to increase the amount of rolling stock and improve its quality by increasing the number and comfort of carriages.”
“I welcome the opportunity to debate the rail services connecting the Highlands with the central belt. We all want improved services, and I have enjoyed listening to the contributions to today’s debate, but postulating the situation as a choice between rail and road would be a profoundly wrong misconception. We must have decent, fair and safe road connections, something that is taken for granted in the central belt. On Monday 15 September, two more people lost their lives on the A9. Our thoughts are with their families; those who lose loved ones in that way and before their time are devastated for ever. According to the Road Safety Foundation, death is three times more likely on single-carriageway roads than on dual carriageways and 10 times more likely than on motorways.”
“However, my first submission is that, where there is a defect in the law—I think that all the major parties accept that there is—the first duty is to correct that before we go on to pass more laws. Our performance, collectively as a Parliament, is surely judged in part by the quality of our legislation and whether it is flawed. I am afraid that, of late, our reputation has become a bit tarnished. My thesis is that, before we pass new laws, we should correct the defects. Over the coming weeks there will be lots of opportunities to defer things and, perhaps, introduce a visitor levy reform bill.”
“The law as passed entitles local authorities to charge a visitor levy only on a percentage basis. It does not allow them the opportunity to charge a flat-rate tax, which is the method that is employed in many places in Europe where a visitor levy has been applied. Many local authorities wish to proceed in that fashion, but they cannot. It is fair to say that the Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, the Deputy First Minister and others have listened to the industry. I have met them and have written to them; I will not go through the whole litany of representations, but I have done all that. It is also fair to say that they have now accepted that it is a flaw and a defect in the law. Short of entering the confessional, I do not think that we will get much more on that front.”
“I wish to speak to the business motion and to make two arguments to the Minister for Parliamentary Business, both of which I set out to him in detail in writing at 5:28 yesterday evening. I acknowledge the courtesy of the helpful reply that I received from Mr Dey this afternoon, to which I have replied in turn. I have two suggested additions to business. First, I argue that a visitor levy reform bill should be brought forward to the Parliament, possibly using the expedited bill process, which, to my knowledge—I could be corrected—has never been employed in the history of devolution. The process is designed to achieve reform when there is consensus among the major parties, which everyone can see is required here. The proposed reform was the subject of some political jousting last week in the chamber, but it is very simple.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Business Motions 17:42”
“Will business improvement districts get area licences, and will the rules revert to those that were applied in 2023, which struck a reasonable balance? Jim Fairlie: I do not know the details of Fergus Ewing’s last point, about the plans being scrapped, so I will look into it and will come back to the member with a written answer. I have the numbers here, in front of me, and it is absolutely crystal clear that, in their natural environment, gulls are declining at an alarming rate. However, they are increasing in urban settings because of all the issues that I laid out in my statement. Although Fergus Ewing is disputing the increase in the number of gulls in urban settings, overall, their numbers are declining. I will take up his point about the methodology and will come back to him in writing.”
“The minister’s argument rests on the proposition that gulls are in decline, but a freedom of information response to my constituent and a report from an expert who was present at the summit both indicate that the population has merely switched from traditional nesting environments to urban areas and that there is no data for urban gull populations. Will the minister place all the available information in the Scottish Parliament information centre so that we can get to the bottom of it? The information is disputed. On a practical level, the business improvement districts were assured last year by NatureScot that there would be a new and better system in place by December, yet, in December, they were told that the plans had been scrapped.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the existing conditions and regime that seek to protect inshore fishing from the impact of any loss of fishing grounds due to the seabed installation of cables for, and construction of, offshore wind installations, require to be reformed in order to provide full compensation for any loss of fishing revenue as a result of having to avoid an area of 0.25 nautical miles from any such cables. (S6O-05000)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I regret that I have not had the opportunity to give you notice of this question, as I normally would. I seek your guidance on how, under rules 13.6B and 13.8 of standing orders, I might raise in the chamber the plight of tourist accommodation businesses in the city of Edinburgh, which, as of tomorrow, will be required to maintain records in order to apply the visitor levy on advance bookings for dates from July next year.”
“That is why the bill requires such consultation and why draft regulations must first be approved by the Parliament. Amendment 219 would take the existing process in the social rented sector, whereby the failure of a social landlord to reply to a request is considered approval, and change that to deemed refusal. Processes in relation to keeping pets in the social rented sector are well established and understood, and I can see no good reason to change them. For all those reasons, I ask members to support amendments 88 to 93 and 102 to 104, and I ask others not to press or move their amendments.”
“Those powers were turned into duties at stage 2, but we must restore the Parliament’s role in that regard. 17:00 Edward Mountain’s amendments 205 and 215 would require ministers to lay draft regulations within six months of royal assent. That is not appropriate, but I assure Mr Mountain that draft regulations will be laid as soon as is reasonably practicable after the powers take effect. I also assure him that it is my intention that the regulations will be in place when the associated right to have a pet comes into force. On Edward Mountain’s amendments 206 and 214, in relation to cleaning carpets and so on before one can keep a pet, I think that the detail of what is reasonable should, again, be developed in consultation. I firmly believe that that is the right approach.”
“That could be achieved in a more balanced way—probably through guidance—that encouraged constructive discussion between landlords and tenants, so I do not support those amendments. Amendment 204 would allow a private landlord, for medical reasons, to reasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet. I hear what Mr Mountain said about his aversion to cats, but it is best for the detail on unreasonable refusals and reasonable conditions to be developed through consultation and guidance; it should not be set out in primary legislation. My amendments 88 to 93 and 102 to 104 are technical. They revert three duties to make regulations back to powers. The powers enable ministers to make provision about when it is reasonable to keep a pet and about when a consent condition is reasonable.”
“It would be for a tribunal or, if the case was escalated, a court to do that. The point is that, right now, it is up to the tenant and the landlord to use the means that best suit them, and I do not think that we should change that. Amendment 202 would restrict a private tenant from keeping a pet until the tribunal had made a determination. However, before keeping a pet, tenants must first have the permission of the landlord and, if the decision is disputed or appealed, they need to wait for a consent order from the tribunal. Therefore, amendment 202 is unnecessary, and I cannot support it. Amendments 203 and 218 would prevent tenants from making further requests to keep a pet following a dismissed appeal unless there was a material change in circumstances. The amendments are a bit rigid.”
“Edward Mountain’s amendments 199 to 201, 216 and 217 would require pet requests and related applications to be sent by recorded delivery. I have listened to his position on the matter, but I think that the amendments are unnecessary. They would impose extra costs and additional administrative burdens on tenants and landlords, who are accustomed to dealing with such things in the way that best suits them. Edward Mountain: I hear the cabinet secretary’s point, but I am trying to ensure that there is no dubiety, so that no one can say that something has happened when it has not happened. How would the cabinet secretary adjudicate in a situation in which somebody said that the notice had been served and the other person said that they had not received it? Whose side would she take? Màiri McAllan: I would not adjudicate on such matters.”
“The provision in amendment 12 was considered but not agreed to at stage 2 because of concerns about the negative consequences of switching to assumed consent in the private rented sector. It is unclear how disputes would be resolved in cases in which a landlord had a legitimate reason for a delayed response, and there would be added complications if the tenant had obtained a pet in the meantime. We do not want to cause confusion, so I cannot support amendment 12. Amendment 15 would change the current one- month timescale for dealing with a request to keep a pet in the social rented sector to a timescale of not more than 30 days. That is unnecessary. The period of one month aligns with social landlords’ response timescales for other requests, and it is clearly helpful for both landlords and tenants if a consistent approach is taken.”
“Màiri McAllan: The rationale is entirely down to the fact that that is already part of our housing law. As I said, under the Equality Act 2010, a disabled tenant can ask a landlord about keeping an assistance animal, and such a request cannot be unreasonably refused. I am happy to work with Ms Chapman and others to ensure that the law is being applied, but an additional provision is not justified. On amendment 87, I am grateful to Maggie Chapman and Emma Roddick for their engagement with me on the issue. In setting a timescale, it is important to ensure that there is enough time for the landlord and the tenant to discuss the request, resolve any concerns and agree reasonable conditions. Ultimately, that will help to avoid disputes. Therefore, a 30-day period is appropriate, so I am happy to support amendment 87.”
“Although I absolutely appreciate the intended effect of the amendments, it is important to note that, under the Equality Act 2010, a disabled tenant can already ask a landlord about keeping an assistance animal. I am really sorry to hear about the case that Ms Chapman raised, but that is a question of the existing law being applied and does not justify creating different provisions, which could create a confusing landscape, so I cannot support those amendments. Maggie Chapman: Given that the existing law is clearly not adequate, because Sight Scotland and others have repeatedly had to go through that process, I do not understand the rationale for not stating clearly in our housing law that assistance animals should be deemed to be acceptable.”
“They might not be making a pet request; their request could be about another really urgent issue. Edward Mountain: Not every landlord is in a position to appoint an agent. A period of 42 days is not unreasonable, especially if we consider the time that it takes Government agencies and ministers to respond to requests for information. I would leave the time period as it is. I will leave it at that and listen to other points. Màiri McAllan: Maggie Chapman’s amendments 9, 10, 13, 14, 26 and 27 would allow private and social tenants to keep an assistance animal without the landlord’s consent. Similar amendments were disagreed to at stage 2.”
“Therefore, it is suitable to say that the landlord may ask for carpets to be cleaned; that does not mean that they have to do so. There are lots of other amendments in this group, so I will sum up. Amendment 15 shortens the timescale for responding to a pet request from 42 days to less than 30 days. That period is too short, especially if the landlord is perhaps on holiday or not in a position to receive the notice. Frankly, both parties should be talking to each other and speaking on the telephone. Maggie Chapman: Thirty days is more than four weeks. If a landlord is to be away for such a time period, would it not be appropriate to have somebody else who could answer on the landlord’s behalf? Thirty days is an awfully long time to leave renters in limbo.”
“Amendment 218 would mean that, when the landlord does not consent to a pet being kept, the tenant “may not make a further application unless there has been a material change in circumstances.” Amendment 219 would keep the presumption in relation to consent in the landlord’s favour rather than against it. That should not be an issue, because if ministers have laid regulations on the reasons for refusal, those should be quite clear. To answer Maggie Chapman’s specific question about assistance animals, I absolutely consider them to be critical to people’s lives. Therefore, the presumption should be in favour of tenants being able to keep them. However, assistance animals are not always well-trained guide dogs; an assistance animal can also be a dog that keeps someone company.”
“Amendments 206 and 214 would mean that a landlord could specify as a condition of the rent that carpeted floors and soft furnishing should be cleaned by an independent company at the end of the tenancy. Landlords should be able to do that; I am not saying that they must do so. However, it is a critical point because pets can sometimes be deliberately difficult—I have one that leaves me messages in the morning. If I was renting a property and that was the case with my pet, it seems only right that I should clean up. Amendment 215 asks ministers to lay a draft instrument in relation to what they consider to be reasonable when it comes to keeping a pet.”
“Amendment 203 would mean that, if a tenant has applied to a tribunal to make a decision about a pet in a property, they cannot apply again in regard to that pet unless there has been “a material change in circumstances.” Amendment 204 would allow the landlord to refuse consent for a pet if they have medical reasons to do so. I give the example that if I get too close to cats, I come out sneezing and break out in hives, so it is extremely difficult for me to go into a property that I have let if the tenant has cats. My point is that many people have such conditions. The reason for amendment 205 is that I want ministers to have to make provisions within six months of the act receiving royal assent about when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent for a pet.”
“An unscrupulous landlord, for example, might say that he had responded to a notice from the tenant and all that would be required in law is for him to sign an affidavit to say that he had sent a notice—whether he had or not, he could just sign that. That could happen, which is why I believe that sending notices by recorded delivery, especially when there is a presumption in favour of one or the other party, would be sensible. In fact, in relation to most rented accommodation, notices are sent by recorded delivery. Amendment 202 is a simple amendment that sets out that a pet cannot be kept at a property while an appeal about the pet is on-going.”
“In the interests of time, I will not comment on other members’ amendments. However, I ask Edward Mountain whether he has considered the requests that we discussed at stage 2 around exempting assistance animals from his amendment on bringing in a professional cleaner. I would be interested in his comments on that. I move amendment 9. Edward Mountain: I want to be clear at the outset that I am a great supporter of pets. I have four dogs and I would never want to be seen as preventing people from having pets in their houses and homes. Amendments 199 to 201, 216 and 217 would require all notices regarding pets to be sent by recorded delivery. That might seem archaic, but it would protect both the tenant and the landlord in ensuring that the notices were sent and that copies of them were recorded.”
“Even when I explained the laws and legislation I was still told no and that the letting agent had to take the landlord’s side. It made me very wary of looking for a rental property and I started to discount a lot of properties as the adverts stated no pets. This left me with a very limited choice of houses to pick from. The stress of finding a property is bad enough without having to explain my sight loss and why I have a Guide Dog as my mobility aid.” Disabled people should not be made to jump through the hoops of the Equality Act 2010 to prove that it covers their ability to have their assistance animal with them in their home. There should instead be a clear and simple statement in Scottish housing law confirming that they can, which is what my amendments would do.”
“I have heard concerns that my amendments are already covered by the Equality Act 2010. However, although the act prohibits discrimination against disabled people, there are no specific provisions for disabled tenants who need their assistance animals at home. Sight Scotland reports having to work with the landlords of blind and partially sighted people to ensure that their assistance animals can live with them. If the Equality Act 2010 was perfectly clear on that point, that would not be happening. I want to provide a quote from a person with sight loss in Edinburgh who has repeatedly been refused a tenancy because they need their guide dog to live with them. They said: “It was very disheartening when I was told that I couldn’t rent a property because of my Guide Dog. It made me feel very upset and frustrated.”
“If a landlord does not meet the deadline, they are currently deemed to have refused the tenant consent to keep a pet, which is also not fair. Tenants have no way of knowing why the landlord does not consent to their keeping a pet and therefore have no ability to offer assurances to the landlord. Amendment 12 would change that so that the landlord would be deemed to have consented if they did not reply within the timescales. That is not new or untested—it is the same approach that appears in the bill for social housing. Again, there is no good reason why social and private tenants should be treated differently. Amendments 9, 10, 13 and 14 would exempt assistance animals from the pet request process and grant an automatic right to have an assistance animal in a rented property.”
“The Dogs Trust believes that that would allow tenants to better plan for pet ownership, reduce any kennelling or cattery expenses, and lessen the significant stress on people of not knowing whether they will be able to keep their pet in their rented property. I thank the Scottish Government for its support for amendment 87, which applies to private housing. I know that it is reluctant to support the social housing version in amendment 15, but supporting both amendments would ensure that private and social tenants are treated equally. Otherwise, we would be treating social and private tenants differently, which is simply not fair. After discussing the issue for the best part of this year, I still have not heard a convincing argument as to why that should be the case. Amendment 12 addresses a loophole in the proposed system.”
“Giving responsible tenants the right to request to keep a pet in their home—a request that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse—will decrease the burden on animal rehoming organisations such as Cats Protection. In 2023, Cats Protection took in around three cats each day due to landlords not allowing them in their properties. The current proposals have the potential to help relieve the large wait lists faced by rehoming organisations and allow them to focus their resources on other animals in need. 16:45 I have lodged a number of amendments to make the process work better, and my amendments have been developed in partnership with Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and Sight Scotland. Amendments 87 and 15 would reduce the time that a tenant has to wait to get a response to a pet request from 42 to 30 days.”
“Maggie Chapman: Pets make a house a home, and part 3 of the bill sets out a clear framework for tenants to make requests for their pet to live with them. There is a lack of pet-friendly rented homes in Scotland. A 2021 survey of landlords, letting agents and tenants on pets and rental properties conducted by YouGov on behalf of Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust found that 68 per cent of private landlords in Scotland who do not currently allow pets in any or all of their properties say that nothing would persuade them to do so. Currently, tenants are being denied the opportunity to experience the benefits of pet ownership simply because their contract says “No pets”. The bill will end blanket no-pets policies by allowing tenants to request to keep a pet.”
“We are also conscious of the fact that we had a late sitting yesterday, we are likely to have a late sitting again tonight and we will most certainly have one next Tuesday. We will exercise as much latitude as we can, but we need co-operation from members in accordance with what the chamber voted on in terms of the business motion and timings. Section 29—Private residential tenancies: keeping pets and making changes to let property The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to group 11: tenant’s rights to keep a pet. Amendment 9, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is grouped with amendments 10, 199, 87, 200, 12, 201 to 203, 88, 89, 204, 90, 205, 91, 92, 206, 93, 13, 14, 102, 103, 214, 104, 215 to 217, 15, 218, 219, 26 and 27.”
“I have 50 per cent of the amendments in group 11, yet I will have less than 50 per cent of the time to speak in it. I wonder whether there is some leeway with the time, Presiding Officer. I do not want to string this out for any longer than is necessary, but I think that 21 seconds is just too little for each amendment. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mountain. As you will be aware, the timings for the groups of amendments were agreed with the business managers and should have been communicated to those who were participating in the debate. As you will have found yesterday and, indeed, today, those in the chair are seeking to apply as much latitude as we can, reflecting the amount of ground that members are trying to cover.”
“Amendment 289 disagreed to. Edward Mountain: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. I am finding the process fairly difficult in the sense that, in the previous group, I had nine amendments and was allowed to speak for five minutes, which meant that I had only 33 seconds to speak to each amendment. In group 11, I will have 14 amendments, which gives me 21 seconds to push and give reasons for each—[Interruption.] The First Minister seems to think that that is more than sufficient, given his comments, but I think that it is a genuine point. We are here to make good legislation, and I find it really difficult to put forward an argument in 21 seconds for each of my amendments, and it gives me no chance to speak to other amendments in the group.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 24, Against 84, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 288 disagreed to. Amendment 289 moved—[Katy Clark]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 289 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”