Kenneth Gibson
No Party Affiliation · Scotland
“The next item of business is decision time. There are eight questions to be put as a result of today’s business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Amanda Bland is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Stephen Kerr will fall.”
“The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S7M-00492, on committee membership, and S7M-00505, on membership of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.”
“The next item of business is general question time. Many members wish to ask supplementary questions, so, in order to get in as many members as possible, I prefer short and succinct questions, with answers to match. Artificial Intelligence Data Centres (Planning Guidance) 1.”
“There are seven questions to be put as a result of today’s business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Tom Arthur is agreed to, the amendments in the names of Daniel Johnson, Murdo Fraser and Willie Rennie will fall.”
“The next item of business is consideration of revised business motion S7M-00480, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, revising this week’s business programme. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button.”
“Speak through the chair, please. Tim Eagle: The Scottish Conservatives recognise that a strong economy is not some optional extra but the foundation on which everything else depends. I actually agree with Reform, and others, that it is all about the economy.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Kenneth Gibson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 17.
“The creation of a Cabinet sub-committee on investment and the economy, chaired by the Deputy First Minister, to “help create a business environment that drives investment and growth”, including by progressing key opportunities identified in the green industrial strategy, is welcome. We look forward to receiving regular updates in relation to the progress of, and outcomes from, the Cabinet sub-committee’s new strands of work. On the Scottish Government’s public service reform programme, we heard from public bodies including Food Standards Scotland, Registers of Scotland, South of Scotland Enterprise, Transport Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and NHS National Services Scotland about the reform and innovation that their organisations are progressing.”
“We look forward to receiving the follow-up information that she offered to provide on the on-going work to join up the activities of Skills Development Scotland and colleges to ensure that the skills needs of employers and the economy are met in this rapidly changing world. The committee seeks further detail on how the Scottish Government is working to maximise the opportunities for universities and high-performing sectors to enable them to be even more globally competitive. The committee awaits a detailed written response setting out the Scottish Government’s vision of how a sustainable higher education sector, which is essential to economic growth, can be achieved, given the evidence that we heard about on-going financial challenges.”
“SFE said: “As an industry, we need short, sharp interventions— say, six months for retraining people.” According to Scottish Renewables, “Vocational pathways are absolutely key and, as we have seen in some of the most productive economies in the world, work-based learning options work.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 17 December 2024; c 10-11.] Technology Scotland reminded us that, while investment in skills is “challenging ... the talent pool is as attractive in Scotland as it is anywhere else.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 17 December 2024; c 33.] When we put those points to the cabinet secretary, she recognised that more action was needed on skills to address gaps and match them to the requirements of the economy.”
“Given the potential impact on the Scottish budget, we have asked the UK Government to have early discussions with the Scottish Government in future to resolve funding uncertainties arising from such significant UK policy announcements. I am keen to highlight evidence that we heard on growing the economy. Both Scottish Financial Enterprise and Colleges Scotland seek greater flexibility to respond to the needs of the economy and business.”
“On 24 January, the Treasury advised that Scotland will receive only a Barnett share of the available funding, which is deeply concerning because it will create a shortfall of £300 million.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2025; c 76- 7.] Prior to that announcement, we recommended that the Scottish Government should set out how it would meet the expected shortfall in UK funding for increased employer national insurance contributions. That includes the impact on the Scottish budget were the Scottish Government to provide any additional funding required, or on public bodies if they had to absorb some of those costs. We look forward to hearing more from the cabinet secretary about that key issue, and I am pleased that she touched on it in her opening speech.”
“The SFC’s view is that we are unlikely to see significant behavioural effects from income tax policy this year as compared with previous years, due to the freezing of bands. It suggests that those on the top tax rate are more likely to be affected “because they will probably have the most discretion to change their behaviour, to move around and so on.”— [Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 10 December 2024; c 8.] We have spoken much in the chamber about the potential impact of the UK Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions, particularly on the public sector. Last Thursday, the cabinet secretary said: “As committees will be aware, the Government has called on the UK Treasury to fully fund those additional costs.”
“Some witnesses stated that tax is a significant factor in people’s decisions about whether to come to Scotland or to retain a business here and argued that the tax landscape must be more competitive in making Scotland an attractive place in which to do business, work and live. We therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to make no further changes to income tax in this parliamentary session. The committee agrees with the cabinet secretary that there is merit in carrying out a wider review of how the fiscal framework is operating. That should include how block grant adjustments based on growth relative to the rest of the UK impact on Scottish income tax revenue.”
“The cabinet secretary said that she will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in an effort to build consensus across the political spectrum on some guiding principles for reform before the end of this parliamentary session. We look forward to that. The issue was explored during evidence, and I am sure that other committee members will touch on it again during the debate. The tax strategy references further discussions with the UK Government, not on VAT devolution but on VAT assignment. Our clear view is that “VAT assignment would be of no benefit to the Scottish Budget and would be both expensive to administer and potentially confusing to those expected to pay it.” We trust that VAT assignment will now be put to bed once and for all.”
“As we explored rising social security spending in some detail last week, I will now move on to the Scottish Government’s approach to taxation. The committee welcomes the production of a tax strategy as providing clarity on the Government’s overall approach. The Government’s focus on building an evidence base, including on behavioural responses, to inform future tax policy is also very welcome, particularly as the committee has repeatedly called for more detailed research on behavioural responses to tax policy. However, in our view, the tax strategy should include details of plans for council tax reform, as that is long overdue.”
“It is reassuring that the Scottish Government is working to a May 2025 publication date for its medium-term financial strategy. The absence of that, because of the general election, hindered last year’s pre-budget scrutiny. We have asked the Scottish Government, as part of its 2025 MTFS, to set out detailed scenario planning for capital and resource borrowing, including details of how the Government will approach any negative reconciliations that exceed annual borrowing limits. We know that the Scottish Government will provide an update on the fiscal sustainability of social security spending. The committee asks that that includes details of how the Scottish Government is assessing the effectiveness and outcomes of its approach to the delivery of benefits and the impact on other parts of the budget.”
“We welcome the cabinet secretary’s comment during the committee’s pre-budget debate that she has “instructed officials to begin planning for a Scottish spending review that will identify opportunities to optimise the use of Scottish Government funding over the longer term.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2025; c 74.] The committee looks forward to engaging with her on those plans in early course. As part of that engagement, we ask the Government to clarify when it will publish the framework document that precedes a spending review, to allow committees, public bodies, external organisations, think tanks and the public to input their views and influence those plans. We also repeat our calls for the Government to consider taking a zero-based budgeting approach to its spending review, learning lessons from countries such as Estonia.”
“That will enable the development of robust budgetary proposals and accurate forecasts and, importantly, will ensure that there is effective parliamentary scrutiny. The committee remains concerned about the Scottish Government’s lack of crucial medium and longer-term financial planning and the repeated delays in publishing key strategic financial documents. The certainty of regular UK spending reviews and one fiscal event each year provides an opportunity for the Scottish Government to demonstrate its commitment to a more strategic approach to financial planning.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which published a detailed report on the Scottish budget 2025-26 on 29 January. I begin with the committee’s reflections on the approach that was taken to timetabling the Scottish budget. The UK budget on 30 October provided a welcome opportunity for the Scottish Government to publish its budget document on 4 December, which was earlier than in recent years. That prompted discussions with the Scottish Government on the overall timetable for publication and scrutiny. Given the UK Government’s welcome commitment to holding one fiscal event each autumn, the committee asks that a similar engagement approach is taken in future years, not least to aid the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission.”
“It would therefore be helpful if the cabinet secretary could update Parliament on when we might expect the next Scottish spending review. I commend the Parliament’s collective pre- budget work. SPICe has noted that it is growing in strength and involves more engagement activities, more evidence received and fewer but more targeted recommendations. I move, That the Parliament notes the pre-budget scrutiny undertaken by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and other parliamentary committees. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members who wish to speak but have not yet pressed their request-to-speak buttons to press them now. 15:07”
“In response, the Scottish Government said that it will “continue to take a responsible and capable approach to Scotland’s finances as new budget pressures emerge”, including by “monitoring all areas of expenditure during the year, prioritising spend, and maximising efficiencies.” The committee did not consider that to be an adequate response. It asked the Scottish Government to carry out that full assessment, with outcomes included in the MTFS 2025 to inform future budget planning. The committee considers that more certainty around the timing of UK fiscal events and of the UK spending review that is on the horizon brings welcome opportunities for the Scottish Government to adopt a much-needed strategic approach to budget planning.”
“The SFC forecasts that social security payments in 2025-26 will cost £1,334 million more than they would be if benefits remained at UK levels. That figure will rise to £1,463 million in 2029-30, not accounting for inflation. The rising social security bill reduces the funding that is available for other spending priorities in the Scottish budget, so the committee previously asked the Scottish Government how it would “assess the long-term affordability and sustainability of its social security policies and their impact on other areas of spend”.”
“Another area of our focus in both our pre-budget and budget reports is the sustainability of spending on social security payments and public sector pay. I will focus on social security spending, and the deputy convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee will return to public sector pay in his closing speech on behalf of the committee. SPICe explained that “Scottish Government decisions on social security have cumulatively added significant cost pressures to its budget.” That is largely because of the introduction of benefits that are unavailable in the rest of the UK, such as the Scottish child payment. Therefore, the Scottish Government is spending more on benefits than it would have done if those benefits had not been devolved.”
“Regardless of the context that I mentioned earlier, that made it more difficult for committees to consider how budget priorities sit within the longer-term context. The Scottish Government’s fiscal update last September, although welcome, focused primarily on the current budget and did not provide the anticipated long-term outlook. We seek assurances that that situation will not be repeated in future years. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s first fiscal update, which was published in August 2024, filled in some of the blanks and provided welcome longer-term context for our pre-budget scrutiny. We have asked the SFC to consider publishing a similar update in future years to provide an up-to- date Government funding position and commentary on in-year spending changes. Those have been substantial in recent years.”
“Disappointingly, the Scottish Government responded that “There is no central information held on reporting of the number of strategy documents, as decisions of this nature are made by individual cabinet secretaries.” We therefore ask the Government to conduct an exercise across portfolios to identify the number of live strategies in place, to provide a baseline for numbers to be monitored and reduced wherever possible. Outcomes of that work should be reported back to the committee by the end of June 2025. More broadly, the committee has also repeatedly asked that the Scottish Government take a longer-term approach to financial planning. We were therefore disappointed at its decision not to publish an MTFS in 2024.”
“Next year, alongside the medium-term financial strategy in May, the Scottish Government also plans to publish a fiscal sustainability delivery plan. It would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could provide more detail on the purpose of that new document, the time period that it will cover and how it fits into the wider budget process. The Scottish Government has also committed to publishing a new public service reform strategy. In light of the announcement of those additional documents, we asked for a progress update regarding the First Minister’s intention to provide “more concrete actions and fewer strategy documents”, including any reduction in numbers achieved to date.”
“Building on that scrutiny, our budget report repeats our disappointment that the Scottish Government “continues to hold back from publishing its Infrastructure Investment Plan pipeline refresh until after the UK spending review.” We strongly agree with the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s position that the 12 per cent increase in capital spending in 2025-26 allows the Scottish Government to “restart paused capital projects and make some new commitments.” Although available capital will then slowly decline to 2029-30, the committee has “strongly urged” the Government to set out its priority commitments to ensure that it is in the best position to “hit the ground running” and invest in infrastructure projects at the start of the next financial year.”
“The university’s regius professor, Sir Mike Ferguson, informed us that £5 million from the Scottish Government for proof of concept investment would generate a return of £200 million. In response to our recommendations, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government committed to supporting research and development, recognising the important role that our universities play in attracting investment, supporting world-leading sectors and building a highly skilled workforce. We note that the Scottish Government recently set up a Cabinet sub-committee on investment and the economy that will “help create a business environment that drives investment and growth.” We have therefore requested regular updates on progress and outcomes of the sub-committee’s new strands of work.”
“Nevertheless, both organisations point to where improvements can still be made, and we continue to pursue those with the Scottish Government. For example, we have asked that significant in-year transfers that occur regularly, such as moving social care funding from health to local government, be baselined in the budget for transparency, and that public-private partnership costs included in budget lines are consistently presented across portfolios. A key focus of our pre-budget scrutiny was the Scottish Government’s approach to growing the economy with a view to increasing Scotland’s overall tax base. To inform our scrutiny, last August, we visited the life sciences department at the University of Dundee, which generates £10 of gross value added for every £1 of investment from the Scottish Government.”
“We have encouraged and welcomed the Scottish Government’s efforts to improve the transparency of budgetary information in recent years. That has included, for example, publishing more detailed information with in-year budget revisions, and providing budget data by classification of functions of government—COFOG—to enable comparisons over time, even when ministerial portfolios change. At the committee’s request, this year’s Scottish budget also includes a comparison with actual spending this year, rather than a comparison with the 2024-25 budget as passed. Importantly, that allows more accurate comparisons of spend, particularly in those years where in-year changes have been substantive. Along with the committee, the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Fraser of Allander Institute welcomed that development.”
“However, this year, SPICe also notes: “The increasingly strong language used by committees in their pre-Budget reports may reflect their impatience and frustration at seeing little progress in some areas, and the overwhelming message was that committees are looking to the Scottish Government to show leadership and a clear strategic direction.” Both the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s pre-budget report and our budget report that was published yesterday included elements of frustration, particularly regarding: the lack of medium and long-term financial planning, notwithstanding external factors; repeated delays to publishing key strategic documents; and the need to reiterate recommendations before clear responses are provided. I will point to some of our more positive reflections, including on transparency.”
“Nevertheless, there was much for committees to consider. Before I focus my remarks on the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s findings, I again touch on the common themes across our pre-budget work, as identified by the Scottish Parliament information centre. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the same overarching themes that we explored last year continued throughout our scrutiny this year. Those include: transparency and accountability; the need for multiyear plans and preventative spend; calls for a more strategic, long-term outlook; clearer links between spending decisions and Scottish Government priorities; and properly evidenced decision making.”
“Key strategic documents, including the infrastructure investment plan pipeline reset and multiyear plans that were expected in late 2023, were again delayed in view of the forthcoming UK Government spending review. In late July, the UK Government announced £8.1 billion of spending cuts and warned of a difficult UK autumn budget ahead. Most committees reported their findings before or just after the UK budget was published on 30 October and were therefore unable to fully consider ways in which the consequential increases in resource and capital spending for the Scottish budget should be spent, or the potential impact of UK-wide decisions on the Scottish budget, including increases to employer national insurance contributions and how those were funded—an issue that still remains unclear.”
“I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I thank my parliamentary colleagues, our excellent clerking team and all of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee to aid our deliberations. Today’s debate provides a welcome opportunity to discuss pre-budget findings from Parliament’s committees and how their reports have influenced the Scottish budget 2025-26. This year’s context for pre-budget scrutiny was one of uncertainty, with no medium-term financial strategy in 2024, due to the imminent United Kingdom general election and emergency in-year budget controls that were in place for a third year running.”
“Combating antisemitism in the 21st century must involve social media companies removing harmful content. Schools should encourage critical thinking and empathy. Organisations and leaders can amplify the voices of those who are impacted by antisemitism. As we reflect on the Holocaust, we must heed its lessons. As Primo Levi reminds us, “it can happen again”, but it is within our power to ensure that it does not. Let us honour the memory of the victims and survivors—for their sakes and for the many generations to come. 17:40”
“The Holocaust Educational Trust’s lessons from Auschwitz programme takes Scottish students to Auschwitz-Birkenau to reflect on the relevance of the Holocaust today and share their learning with others. In my constituency, individuals such as David Cockerill of Largs academy now champion the importance of Holocaust education. David was chosen as an ambassador for the trust, and he will share his reflections on his visit to Auschwitz at a commemorative service this weekend. The arts play a vital role in preserving Holocaust memories. Plays, films and literature are pivotal in keeping the conversation alive. Meanwhile, organisations such as the Anne Frank Trust instil empathy and inclusion in young people. However, education and commemoration alone cannot secure a better future.”
“In the final three months of 2023, 46 antisemitic hate incidents were recorded in Scotland—the same number as in the whole of 2021. Figures for last year are not yet available, but I anticipate that they will have risen further. Social media platforms such as X and Facebook have become cesspits of Holocaust denial and far-right extremism. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the level of Holocaust denial content rose by 30 per cent between 2021 and 2023. Deniers aim to sow division and undermine truth. On digital platforms, coded language and memes are used. Hate groups target Jewish students at universities. Conspiracy theories are spread anonymously online. However, even with such challenges, Scotland continues in its pursuit for a better future.”
“One such voice was that of Judith Rosenberg, who was deported to Auschwitz in 1944. Her first night was filled with terror as she witnessed the brutality that claimed countless lives. Judith faced constant violence, starvation and illness. Despite overwhelming odds, she survived and worked in a factory, repairing watches. That earned her extra rations, which she selflessly shared with her mother and sister. When she was liberated in 1945, Judith married Lieutenant Harold Rosenberg and forged a new life in Glasgow. When she passed away three years ago, at the age of 98, Judith left a £500,000 bequest to the University of Strathclyde to advance quantum technology research. Despite Scotland’s reputation for tolerance, antisemitism is a troubling reality here.”
“By 1939, the Nazis had stripped Jewish people of all their rights, setting the stage for genocide. The acts of barbarity committed in Nazi extermination camps, concentration camps and ghettos, the mass shootings, and the starvation imposed across occupied eastern Europe remain incomprehensible. Among the most grotesque were the pseudoscientific experiments that were conducted, under the guise of medical research, by Dr Josef Mengele. His victims, who were often child twins, suffered brutal extremes of hypothermia, lethal diseases and noxious chemicals, all while anaesthesia was withheld, thereby subjecting them to unimaginable agony. Those horrors led to the Nuremberg code—a milestone in medical ethics that still guides research today. Holocaust survivors’ testimonies remind us of our duty to prevent any recurrence.”
“Across occupied Europe, the Nazis also killed 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war, Polish intellectuals, resistance fighters, Roma people, disabled people, political dissidents, homosexuals and other targeted groups. To Stalin is attributed the saying: “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic.” However, the figures that I have mentioned are not mere abstractions. They remind us of the individual lives that were brutally destroyed in terrifying circumstances and the constant need to confront hatred and the abuse of power if we are to have a better future. The seeds of the Holocaust were sown by violence combined with the manipulation of language and legalities. The 1935 Nuremberg laws institutionalised the exclusion of Jewish people from German society, beginning with the dehumanisation of an entire population.”
“I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on securing this timely debate, which recognises that this year marks the 80th anniversary of Soviet troops liberating Auschwitz. “It happened, therefore it can happen again.” Those sobering words of Holocaust survivor Primo Levi remind us of the importance of memory and vigilance to this year’s Holocaust memorial day theme, which is “For a better future”. The Holocaust, or Shoah, was one of the most devastating and morally catastrophic events in human history, which claimed the lives of 6 million Jewish people, who were systematically murdered. At Auschwitz-Birkenau, 1.1 million people died, primarily in gas chambers. More than 90 per cent of them were Jews.”
“I am not likely to vote for amendments 17 and 18, but I want there to be a fuller discussion on the matter. I want a discussion that brings in areas where e-collars could be needed in order to provide the effective ban that members have been talking about.”
“I do not disagree that the animal welfare organisations support the amendments, but what I have been told by constituents, and what I believe, is that there is probably a sub- group for which there needs to be exemptions. I go back to the case of Rex. I was told by my constituent that “A harness could be a death sentence for Rex and cause permanent paralysis. That is why we need to continue to use the prong and e-collar, or Rex will never go another walk in his life.” Another constituent that I mentioned, Lauren Russell, said that, after using an e-collar, her dog Angus is now happier and calmer. 16:15 I have been told by constituents—and I have to believe what they are telling me—that if they do not use an e-collar with those dogs, the dogs could be put down. I know that no animal welfare organisation would have been up for that either.”
“I spoke in that debate and I also lodged a motion on 11 September 2007 that called for a ban on electric shock collars. What is happening now is that people who oppose the amendments are doing so on the basis of the protests of a few people who have a vested interest. Does the member agree that the people who have dogs’ best interests at heart are the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and other animal welfare organisations, rather than people who might have a financial or other vested interest? We should be addressing the cruelty that is inherent in the shock collars, rather than hiding behind parliamentary process, as some members appear to be doing today. Fulton MacGregor: I thank Kenneth Gibson for that intervention.”
“I was coming on to say that it is because constituents have not had a chance to feed their views into the debate on the amendments that they felt the need to come to me at short notice. That is why I went back to what Edward Mountain said. I am not opposed to a ban if a ban is the right thing, but it needs to be effective, as Maurice Golden said, and as I am sure that Christine Grahame and others will reflect. An effective ban needs to look at where there could be exemptions, but it also needs to go through a proper parliamentary process that constituents can feed into, so that members can hear from constituents such as those that I have heard from. Kenneth Gibson: In January 2015, Christine Grahame brought a debate on a shocking way to treat a dog.”
“Mr MacGregor has laid out an argument in favour of the use of shock collars. That is a minority position that some people hold, and I recognise that, but I want him to clarify that. Is he arguing against the amendments because he thinks that there is an issue with the wording of them? He has not yet done that. What he has done so far is to argue against the Scottish Government’s position of 2018 and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s position of 2023, which is that e-collars and shock collars should not be used—full stop. Fulton MacGregor: I appreciate the member’s intervention, but I need to be clear that I am representing constituents who have contacted me—that is our job in this place.”
“It goes without saying that I do not support measures that would cause harm to animals but, in this instance, I believe that a more nuanced approach is needed rather than an outright ban. I also note that we are still waiting for the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to report on aversive training methods, and I believe that it would be wise to wait until we see that report in full before pushing for any bans. Ross Greer: Will the member take an intervention? Fulton MacGregor: I might be coming to the point that you are going to raise, but I will let you in. The Presiding Officer: Please always speak through the chair. Ross Greer: I am grateful to the member for taking my intervention. He started by saying that the issue was one of muddled wording, but the argument that he has laid out is not about the wording of the amendments.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Fulton MacGregor: I have already taken an intervention. I am advised that critics often misunderstand or focus on those who misuse e-collars, leading to calls for bans. However, banning them would limit the ability of responsible trainers and owners to manage dogs effectively, particularly those with complex needs, as I have already mentioned. I believe that education in the proper use of e- collars rather than full prohibition is the better solution at this time. I was going to mention their effectiveness in rural areas, but Ross Greer has covered that. As I do not have a particularly rural constituency and there are probably people better placed than me to talk about that, I will leave it there.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much it anticipates will be paid in this financial year in private finance initiative and public-private partnership unitary charge payments across the public sector. (S6O-04236)”
“As we know from the Tories’ disastrous privatisation of Ardrossan harbour in 1992, the consequences of poor decisions can be felt for decades. A Peter Brett Associates study comparing the costs of Brodick’s ferry going to Ardrossan with its going to Troon found that Troon would be 4.9 times more expensive over a 30-year period. Will the minister impress on colleagues the necessity of making Arran’s ferry service fit for the future by redeveloping Ardrossan harbour? Jim Fairlie: The member has been engaged on the issue and he knows that the Government is well aware of the Troon and Ardrossan issues. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee yesterday, and she is well aware of the issues. We will continue to have those conversations about the importance of”
“They are used only when they are unavoidable, and they are implemented to protect either Scotland’s road workers or the public. Local authorities have powers to direct that unreasonably prolonged works be completed by a given date and they have inspectorate powers in relation to utilities works. When I and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport met the Scottish Road Works Commissioner recently, we raised the issue of co-ordination of works. Since April 2024, the commissioner has also had inspectorate powers, use of which will be reported on in the next annual report. I and the cabinet secretary emphasised to him that the frustration is causing real concern. Borders Railway (Extension) 3.”
“From 1 January to 12 November last year, North Ayrshire motorists endured 2,457 days of closed roads. The minister will understand the frustration of many road users about the duration of the closures, especially when no visible work is being carried out or there is no one on site. What more can the Scottish Government do to work with local authorities and, indeed, on its own network, to diminish the negative impacts of lengthy closures and minimise their occurrence? Jim Fairlie: I absolutely understand the frustration about road closures in the same way as I understand the frustration about potholes, especially when sites appear to be empty. However, there are, generally, good engineering and safety reasons for closures.”
“Yesterday, the Scottish National Investment Bank announced a welcome £20 million investment into XLCC, the company that is developing the United Kingdom’s first high-voltage direct current cable manufacturing facility, at Hunterston in my constituency. That £1.4 billion- plus project will create 900 highly skilled jobs and will position Scotland as a global leader in HVDC technology. Does the First Minister agree that that is a first-class opportunity for Scotland to help to drive net zero innovation? What will his Government do to ensure that that project and similar projects secure the support needed to thrive?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on farmers giving the methane-reducing feed additive Bovaer to their cattle. (S6O-04206)”
“First, I say to those in the public gallery that they are very welcome to be here this evening in what is their Parliament, but, under our rules of procedure, we do not have members of the public in the gallery clapping. I hope that they will appreciate that I am required to point that out. Secondly, there is a lot of interest in the debate, and I remind back-bench members who have pressed their request-to-speak button that I ask for speeches of up to four minutes. Thirdly, given the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Kenneth Gibson to move the motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Kenneth Gibson] Motion agreed to. 18:04”
“Failure to uphold ombudsman recommendations sets a terrible precedent that the UK Government can disregard its own failings and that those who have been wronged can be dismissed and ignored. WASPI women deserve better. It is estimated that more than 300,000 have died since the campaign began, and another dies every 13 minutes. I urge members on all sides of the chamber to unite in demanding justice—which means compensation, without delay. To WASPI women who are listening to this debate, I say: the SNP stands with you, and we will ensure that your voices are heard until you receive the justice and compensation that you deserve. The Deputy Presiding Officer: At this point, I should mention a few housekeeping issues.”