Mark Ruskell
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“I move amendment S7M-00434.3, to insert at end: “; recognises that, despite a media backlash, a majority of the public continues to back strong climate action, especially young people; further recognises that local communities and workers must have a meaningful participatory role in developing and implementing local climate action, with t…”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises that climate change constitutes an emergency; supports the goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius; notes the consequences of climate change that are currently impacting populations and places around the world; condemns any spread of misinformation about and denial of the impacts of clima…”
“Mark Ruskell was right to point out that we need a just transition, as we do not want to replicate the mistakes of the 1980s. However, we need action on electricity prices.”
“We cannot cut ourselves off from the impacts of global climate change, as Reform would want us to do, just as we cannot opt out of global action by pretending that Scotland does not have huge advantages over other countries when it comes to reducing emissions.”
“A study that was commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research a couple of months ago showed that 62 per cent of the UK public back strong climate action, and individual policies such as traffic reduction measures, frequent flyer taxes and low- carbon home heating remain popular.”
“We need to accelerate that action, because as we do so, we will build market certainty and create new markets that will provide new jobs and boost businesses. I think that I have made quite a lot of mention of the amount of GVA that it is bringing to Scotland.”
The complete record
Every one of 440 lines we hold for Mark Ruskell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“I am pleased that the Scottish Government has accepted that principle and that it wants us to join the flotilla of countries that are embedding ecocide into their domestic legislation, but how we achieve it in Scotland in a way that dovetails with our existing laws is important. The Scottish Greens will be backing the general principles of the bill, but I am aware, through the evidence that we have taken in committee, that major amendments will be required if the bill is to pass stage 3 in the weeks ahead. Adopting an ecocide offence cannot be a one- size-fits-all approach across the world, and Scotland’s framework of environmental law is relatively well developed, stemming from the decades that we spent in the European Union. An ecocide offence in Scotland makes sense.”
“I thank Monica Lennon for bringing forward Scotland’s first ever ecocide legislation. I was delighted to be at the launch of her bill in Edinburgh a couple of years ago. We also both took time in Reykjavik, at the Arctic Circle assembly, to meet international law makers who are pushing for this change globally. This is a truly a global green movement for change, which reflects that humanity is living through the Anthropocene—a period of lightning- fast destruction caused by just one species on this planet. It is therefore right that an offence of ecocide is reflected in law, and it should be a criminal offence of the highest order to intentionally destroy our environment and our common future.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action is being taken to ensure the safety of people seeking asylum who are housed in hotels across Perth. (S6O-05467)”
“For the same reasons as applied to the similar section 21(5)(b)(ii) of the UNCRC bill, the court decided that section 5(1) of the Euro charter bill would affect the power of the UK Parliament to legislate for Scotland, because it would modify section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, so it fell outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. If members in the chamber are still with me, we will move to session 6. With Mr Wightman not being returned as an MSP, the responsibility fell to me, as the designated member now in charge of the bill, to decide whether to move towards a reconsideration stage.”
“The Supreme Court ruled that that would sometimes require the courts to modify the meaning and effect of acts of the UK Parliament, which would produce results that the UK Parliament did not intend. Accordingly, the court decided, for the same reasons as applied to the similar section 19(2)(a)(ii) of the UNCRC bill, that section 4(1A) of the Euro charter bill would be outside the legislative competence of this Parliament. The second provision of this bill that was in question was section 5(1), which confers on the courts the power to declare that a provision of an act is incompatible with the charter.”
“The two bills were drafted differently and, therefore, the issues before the court were slightly different, but the key question on the Euro charter bill was whether the bill conferred powers on the courts to interpret and scrutinise the legality of legislation passed by the sovereign UK Parliament and whether that modified the effect of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which states that the conferral of power on the Scottish Parliament “does not affect the power of the” UK Parliament “to make laws for Scotland.” The first provision in question was section 4(1A) of the Euro charter bill. Section 4(1) provides that legislation referred to in section 4(1A) must be “read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Charter”.”
“It also enables them to declare legislative provisions to be incompatible with the charter and require the Scottish ministers to take remedial action, as well as giving them powers in relation to decisions of Scottish ministers that breach their duties under the charter. Finally, the bill says that bills introduced in the Parliament need to be accompanied by a statement on their compatibility with the charter. Following stage 3, the bill, together with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill, was referred to the United Kingdom Supreme Court by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland under section 33(1) of the Scotland Act 1998. In October 2021, the Supreme Court found that the referred provisions were outside the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence.”
“The fundamental purpose of incorporation is to strengthen the standing of local government in the democratic governance of Scotland through a range of measures relating to the Scottish ministers, the courts and this Parliament. The bill was widely supported on a cross-party basis. I pay tribute to Andy Wightman for seeking to elevate the status of local government at a time when concerns about the centralisation of decision making in Edinburgh were rife and the Verity house agreement had yet to be signed. In summary, the bill places a duty on the Scottish ministers to act compatibly with the charter and to promote self-government. The bill requires the courts to give effect to legislation in a way that is compatible with the charter.”
“I am happy to move the motion to enable the reconsideration of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. Some members may be surprised to hear me speak to a second member’s bill, just days after seeing my Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill through stage 1, so a little explanation is perhaps required, especially for members who were not present in session 5. The Euro charter bill, as I call it, was introduced by Andy Wightman in May 2020, and it passed stage 3 on 23 March 2021, shortly before dissolution. The bill incorporates the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law.”
“We need leadership on the ground, and we need people who back national parks in their communities to stick their heads above the parapet and say, “This is going to be good for our communities.” I live in a national park area, and I see its advantages every day. There was clearly an appetite from communities across Scotland for more parks, and there was a quiet confidence that we were going to get them. That is not going to go away, despite NFU Scotland’s campaigning. All politicians need to recognise that. In my closing remarks I will turn to some of the amendments that have strengthened the bill. For now, though, I say that Scottish Greens will be very happy to vote for the bill at stage 3. 17:27”
“It feels as though the Government wants to keep the lid on national parks at a time when we need them more than ever if we are to deliver the right opportunities for people and nature in some of the most sensitive landscapes that we have in Scotland. Sarah Boyack: I am proud to have delivered for our national parks. It is key that we learn lessons from the good that has been done there and about what more needs to be done. We need more such parks in Scotland, and there will be big lessons to learn from this parliamentary session. Does Mark Ruskell agree? Mark Ruskell: The big lesson is that we need political leadership, and I am not just talking about from whoever happens to be the minister at the time.”
“In part 4 of the bill we now have reforms that give NatureScot and land managers the best chance of delivering the action that is needed for us, at last, to get to sustainable deer numbers. However, there is still more work to be done to roll out the recommendations of the independent deer working group. We must continue to work hard to realise the legacy of Simon Pepper and his colleagues. The group did incredible work back in 2017, and I say to the minister that there is still work to be done on that aspect. I hope that, in time, parts 1 and 4 of the bill will prove to be transformational. Thankfully, part 2 is gone. For me, part 3, on national parks, represents unfinished business.”
“It is right that the ministerial powers to amend those laws in part 2 of the bill were removed. We have seen at Westminster the threat to the environment from the watering down of nature law. That must not happen here, either now or in the future. However, if there is a case for more precise surgery on the habitats and environmental assessment regulations, it will be for a future Government to bring those proposals back to the chamber. In the meantime, the cabinet secretary’s commitments to update the guidance are welcome. That will provide the clarity that will be needed if we are to get on with the job of nature restoration at scale. It is clear that we cannot deliver a full-scale restoration of our woodlands and peatlands without properly managing deer to finally bring their numbers down permanently.”
“I am proud that, in this session of Parliament, my colleague Lorna Slater, as a minister, rebooted the biodiversity strategy and set the wheels in motion for the bill. It is right that the international commitments that she signed us up to at the biodiversity conference of the parties are now enshrined in the bill, and I am delighted that her amendment to achieve that has passed into the bill. Tonight, we will agree on the requirement for action-focused targets to get on to a faster track to restoring nature. That will need a degree of flexibility in how sites are designated if we are to realise the much bolder ambition of landscape- scale restoration. However, a case for the wholesale reform of regulations at the backbone of nature protection was not made by either the Government or stakeholders.”
“The purpose of the bill is to tackle the nature emergency. We should be in no doubt that, sadly, Scotland is a nature-depleted country. However, the green shoots of recovery are everywhere—from beaver-built wetlands to urban meadows that are teeming with pollinators and people. I pay tribute to the communities, conservationists and land managers who have made so much progress over the years. I hope that the bill will turbocharge their future efforts. Before returning to Holyrood, I sat on the Scottish biodiversity forum as a representative of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. At that time—more than a decade ago—I saw inertia and inaction. There were no targets. There were no action plans.”
“However, I share wider concerns in relation to breeding, kennelling and transportation of dogs to tracks outside Scotland, and I encourage wider work by the Scottish Government, separate to the bill, to address those concerns. As long as greyhound racing remains legal, we will see injuries and deaths. I urge members to support the general principles of the bill. Let us take that first and critical step to ending the suffering of greyhounds in Scotland. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill. 16:01”
“The offences set out in the bill cover oval tracks and therefore apply to racing at licensed and independent tracks, and they relate to any racing activity, such as races, timed trials and sales trials. Given that all race tracks in Scotland are oval, the bill should ensure that no further racing takes place. However, it also includes a provision that would allow Scottish ministers to regulate to include other types of tracks if they were to be opened and deemed to pose a risk to greyhound welfare. Should someone be convicted of an offence, they could be subject to a fine or prison sentence and might have other penalties imposed on them, such as being prevented from owning a greyhound. My bill is tightly drawn, with the clear aim of ending the suffering that is caused directly by racing on oval tracks.”
“Some members will be thinking, “Why do we need this bill if the industry is in decline in Scotland and there is no active racing?” However, if the bill is not passed, there will be nothing to prevent greyhound racing from restarting, which would put more greyhounds at significant risk of injury and death. That is exactly what happened in Wales. The unlicensed Valley track in Wales became GBGB registered in 2023, racing increased fourfold and more dogs were injured as a result. Whether it is one or 100 greyhounds, that unnecessary harm should not be allowed to happen. Only by ending greyhound racing permanently can we ensure that that suffering ends. My bill will achieve that by making it illegal for a person knowingly to use or permit the use of greyhounds in racing at race tracks.”
“There is no legal requirement for independent tracks such as Thornton—the only track that is left in Scotland—to record or publish data relating to fatalities and injuries. However, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has stated that there is no reason to believe that the risks at unlicensed tracks in Scotland are any different from or less than those at tracks elsewhere in the UK. Thornton, the last remaining track in Scotland, is nearly identical in size and track surface to the licensed track at Shawfield, at which there were 197 injuries and 15 deaths between 2018 and 2020, when it closed.”
“That is because Sasha fell hard on the first bend of a trial race, resulting in her leg being broken in several places and leaving her with a permanently misshapen leg and paw. Her trainer was talked into surrendering her to a charity for further care and rehoming, rather than simply euthanising her. That injury was completely preventable and is exactly what the bill will put an end to in Scotland. The sport is administered by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, whose own data shows the inherent evidence-based risk of injury and fatality. Between 2017 and 2024, there have been more than 1,000 trackside deaths and more than 30,000 injuries across the United Kingdom, and, in 2024, there was an increase in the number of track fatalities.”
“Greyhound racing on oval tracks is inherently dangerous. Racing at speeds of up to 40mph on an oval track exerts excessive force on the left fore and right hind limbs, leading to leg breaks and injury in the dogs. Collisions often occur at the first curve of the track due to the impacts of centrifugal force and the dogs bunching to keep the lure in their sight. Dogs collide with one another or the fencing, or stumble, resulting in catastrophic injuries that have lifelong impacts that are rarely seen in other dogs. Many members have had the pleasure of meeting Sasha, an ex-racing dog who has visited Parliament on a number of occasions. Members might have noticed that Sasha has a limp and wears a shoe on her back right foot.”
“Scotland is considered a world leader in animal welfare, but it is one of only eight countries where commercial greyhound racing is still legal. Of those eight countries, New Zealand, Wales, the US and the state of Tasmania are in the process of introducing bans on the activity. We have a unique opportunity to end this dangerous activity. There is huge public support for such a measure, and the industry is in decline. My bill was inspired, in part, by petition PE1758, which was brought to the Parliament by Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation and signed by more than 30,000 members of the public. It is clear that greyhound racing is no longer welcome in Scotland. Polling shows that 68 per cent of Scots back the proposed ban. The risk of injury and death is embedded in the design of greyhound racing.”
“I am very proud to bring to the chamber a bill that gives us a momentous opportunity to end greyhound racing in Scotland and the suffering that those wonderful dogs face. I acknowledge the hard work that it has taken to get here—of my staff, the non-Government bills unit and the tireless campaigners and members of the public who have consistently highlighted the suffering of greyhounds. Some of those people are in the public gallery this afternoon. I also thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its scrutiny of the issue over a number of years; the Scottish Government for its constructive approach to considering the bill as it has evolved; and members of all parties in the Parliament for their support. The bill is necessary and long overdue.”
“The wording in the amendment will ensure that there is scrutiny of the Government’s approach to funding the activities required to meet targets, but at an appropriate level of detail.”
“I thank Ariane Burgess for highlighting a major gap in the bill. I will speak to amendment 27. The intention of my stage 2 amendment on target- setting statements was to ensure that the Parliament was given reassurance about the approach that ministers would take to meet the targets. However, I have discussed with the cabinet secretary the challenges around providing exact costings for biodiversity action before plans to meet targets have been fully developed. There are difficulties in setting out the full costs of the approach as my amendment detailed, so I am proposing to replace that with a requirement that ministers set out how the approach to meeting targets is to be funded. It is important to set out the broad investment opportunities for both public and private investment to deliver nature restoration.”
“There have been local representations about trying to manage them, and we discussed the matter at the most recent meeting of the A9 safety group, in relation to what can be done with our contractors. That is why we are exploring the possibility of implementing a speed reduction, along with, potentially, signalling. On the idea of a temporary roundabout, I note that there have been a significant number of objections made and concerns raised about that from people in the Pass of Birnam and Dunkeld area. If the issue goes to a public inquiry, as it might do, it will not be possible for work to proceed on a temporary roundabout.”
“Anyone who has attempted to turn north on to the A9 at Dunkeld will recognise the absolute road safety nightmare that is faced by communities day in, day out. Although I welcome the mention of that junction in the statement, what is proposed falls way short of what the communities have campaigned for over many years. They want a roundabout and permanent speed reduction on the A9. What reassurance can the cabinet secretary give that the improvements that the communities want will be delivered and that we will end up with a safer road rather than just a faster road? Fiona Hyslop: I recognise those issues, which is why, in my statement, I addressed some of the issues around the A923-A9 junction.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Deputy First Minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding when a just transition fund for Mossmorran will be introduced. (S6O-05359)”
“I apologise to the chamber for needing to leave before the end of this session of question time. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made to update national guidance for local authorities on their responsibilities to uphold public access rights. (S6O-05293)”
“There is new technology that helps with monitoring and enforcement, which we are using and deploying. The “Reported Road Casualties Scotland 2024” report, which was published in October 2024, showed that, in relation to the key aspects of and contributory factors to collisions, behaviour and inexperience were involved in 78 per cent of collisions, speed- related factors were involved in 34 per cent and distraction or impairment was involved in 28 per cent. We must tackle the issue in a variety of areas, but speed makes a difference. Mark Ruskell will know from his pursuit of 20mph speed limits in our towns and villages across Scotland that, once communities have that speed limit, they do not want it to go back. We are also starting to see evidence from the Borders and the Highlands about the impact that those speed limits are having.”
“I recognise that a large number of people responded to the Scottish Government’s consultation. However, to be honest, I am more concerned about the 1,978 people who were seriously injured on our roads last year and the 146 people who lost their lives. The Government raised expectations that it would deliver a measure—dropping the speed limit to 50mph— that would have saved lives. What will the cabinet secretary now say to people in Blair Drummond, Dunkeld and the many other rural communities that have campaigned for commonsense safer speed limits around their communities? What will the Government do to pick up the delivery of safer speed limits and save lives? Fiona Hyslop: Part of our discussions at the national road safety strategic partnership board meeting is about Road Safety Scotland’s speed management activity.”
“Although she is leading on that, I, too, have met ExxonMobil to discuss some of the guarantees that it is going to put in place around, for example, its skills offer for those who face redundancy. The company has told me that it is also trying to redeploy workers from the Fife plant to its operations in other parts of the country, and it is also going to retain some workers to provide the steam associated with the neighbouring Fife natural gas liquids facility, which is operated by Shell. On the general point that Mark Ruskell raised, as a result of the project willow work, which has been concentrating on Grangemouth, there are a great deal of projects that may not have been right for Grangemouth but may be well suited to Mossmorran, and the Deputy First Minister is engaging with Scottish Enterprise on what those might be.”
“The future of Grangemouth has always been linked to Mossmorran, and for decades they have shared a common workforce. A few weeks ago, the Deputy First Minister came to the chamber and talked about expanding the Grangemouth investment task force to include Mossmorran as a potential location for projects. Can the cabinet secretary give members an update on that? In addition, given that it seems that a number of projects have now been selected, is it too late—I hope not—to incorporate Mossmorran into the thinking around the work of that task force and could consideration be given to successful projects that can include both sites? Gillian Martin: The Deputy First Minister is with me just now and she is leading on the Mossmorran situation, after the very disappointing announcement by ExxonMobil.”
“I look forward to a national transport strategy that goes back to the principles of good transport planning, rather than a slanging match about the dualling of roads in Scotland. I move amendment S6M-20057.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert: “believes that future transport investment must prioritise sustainability, equality, public transport and active travel over large-scale road building, and further believes that investment in roads should improve safety, address maintenance backlogs, deliver climate resilience on vulnerable routes, including the A83, help prioritise road space for buses and be matched with ambitious investment in rail, including upgrading the Highland Mainline and reconnecting communities, such as Newburgh, to the rail network.” 16:19”
“It means investing in bus services so that they are reliable, affordable services that everyone can access, which is especially important in rural communities, where those who depend on public transport can become socially isolated. Bus priority measures should be delivered in our cities, so that buses can quickly pass traffic jams. The pause in the Government’s funding for those investments was damaging. Delays and congestion have only helped to accelerate the withdrawal of services by private operators that are solely focused on profitability. In conclusion, we need a Government that is prepared to break the cycle of declining bus services and commit to financially supporting public transport to deliver franchising and public control for bus services, alongside investment in rail and active travel.”
“If we compare that with the 1,752 miles of Scotland’s railway network, it is clear that upgrading and dualling the A75, the A7, the A96 and the A9 will not enhance connectivity. I absolutely accept that we need investment to dual key sections of trunk roads, alongside junction improvements and bypasses to relieve town centres of traffic congestion. However, we do not need investment to build wider roads everywhere that will ultimately result in more traffic congestion and higher maintenance costs. We need investment in accessible, affordable and reliable public transport. That means upgrading the Highland main line, for example, and delivering projects such as Newburgh station to connect communities to the rail network and create fresh economic opportunities.”
“Numerous studies have shown that investing in public buses and trains connects people with economic and education opportunities, boosts productivity and aids connectivity, which all contributes towards growth. There are also clear environmental and health benefits of investing in and encouraging a shift towards sustainable transport. We all know that private car use is responsible for about 60 per cent of road transport emissions, compared with the 6 per cent of emissions that are created by public transport. Obviously, we have a lot of roads in Scotland— 31,700 miles of roads, to be exact, which is enough to travel the circumference of the earth one and a half times.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you some time back. Finlay Carson: Briefly, the economic impact assessment for the A75 noted that full dualling would generate £5 billion-worth of benefits, including £700 million from reduced journey times and—I note for Mark Ruskell—£95 million in carbon dioxide emission savings. Mark Ruskell: Every project needs to be considered on its own merits. If the member were to look at the A9, he would see that its cost benefit ratio did not stack up initially. I am asking for all transport infrastructure projects to be considered fairly against each other as to whether they are delivering the best value for the public pound.”
“Mark Ruskell: Unfortunately, I do not think that I have time to take interventions. Of course, buses use the roads too, but the unprecedented growth in traffic and congestion is piling costs on to maintaining the network for all road users, and public transport is not being prioritised as was promised in the national transport strategy. The notion that upgrading and dualling more roads in Scotland is the best way to boost economic growth and increase connectivity is disingenuous. Investment in our roads for maintenance, improved safety and climate resilience is absolutely necessary, but dualling miles of road to speed up journey times by a handful of minutes is not. Finlay Carson: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Mark Ruskell: Do I have time, Presiding Officer?”
“Speaking as a motorist, I welcome sensible investment in our roads, but building roads is not the only way to generate economic growth, and roads are not even the most effective transport infrastructure to achieve that goal. The evidence on the economic impact of road building is mixed. Analysis from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that investing in roads does not deliver good value for money. Return on investment for road infrastructure is lower compared with other infrastructure investments, particularly in public transport. In a recent SWestrans board meeting, Transport Scotland officials noted that revenue spending on the A75 in the past two years would keep bus services in Dumfries and Galloway running for the next 300 years. Finlay Carson: Will the member take an intervention?”
“Jackie Baillie: Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention? Mark Ruskell: I am in my closing sentences. I urge the Scottish Government to redouble its efforts, using all the powers that it has, to fund and reform a social care system that is genuinely fit for the 21st century. 15:17”
“The report is clear that the Scottish Government and COSLA should work together, without delay, to deliver a clear timeline for removing non- residential care charges. The SNP’s amendment is right to note that the UK Government’s hostile immigration policies are starting to have a “devastating impact” on the sector. Scottish Care has warned that UK Labour’s proposal to extend the qualifying period for settlement for legal migrants, particularly the increase from five to 15 years for those on health and social care visas, will have a “profoundly negative impact” on care services across Scotland. We cannot afford to lose those hard- working people from the sector. I urge Scottish Labour to acknowledge the impact that those policies will have, and are having, in contributing to the crisis that exists in the social care sector.”
“Disabled people’s access to social care support is critical to the realisation of their human rights, but they are all too often denied those rights by a system that brutalises them and fails to meet their basic needs. A Glasgow Disability Alliance survey that was conducted last year revealed what that means in practice for disabled people—93 per cent were worried about money, 71 per cent could not meet their needs on their income and 67 per cent could not access social care that actually met their needs. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report found that, at the same time as disabled people and their households are facing rising costs, local authorities are making decisions to increase non- residential social care support charges and raise eligibility thresholds for accessing support.”
“According to Scottish Action for Mental Health, “Ethical commissioning should be based on partnership and cooperation between commissioners, social care providers and people in receipt of social care, rather than the existing model of competition which prioritises cost.” In their closing speeches, I want to hear from ministers about what steps they are taking to ensure that genuine ethical commissioning is taking place in the sector. In 2021, the Scottish Government committed to ending non-residential social care charges, but no meaningful progress has been made since then. As a report that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published last month highlighted, “disabled people face deepening poverty and rising costs”.”
“Despite the passage of the Care Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, fundamental reform of the sector is still needed, because the ambitions of the independent review of adult social care have not yet been realised. For example, we are yet to achieve ethical commissioning, which would recognise the value of the third sector as equal partners in delivering social care. Representatives from the sector are clear that the current commissioning model is harmful and unsustainable.”
“I pay tribute to the social care staff and unpaid carers of all ages who work so hard to take care of people under often very difficult circumstances. Low pay, understaffing and a lack of access to proper breaks from caring have all placed enormous pressure on people who give their all day in, day out, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the sector is in crisis. Historic underfunding has led to long waits for care and support, which is too often only available, if at all, when people reach crisis point. We can all reflect on the real experiences of our constituents and our own families. Parents are denied social care for their son when a package would transform the lives of everyone in the family. A grandfather is trapped in a hospital bed, waiting for social work and the NHS to finally agree a package so that he can return home.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, further to the assessment by the Scottish Human Rights Commission that disabled and autistic people are not being supported to exercise their right to independent living, as enshrined in article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, what discussions the social justice secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action that can be taken to address this. (S6O-05216)”
“I will need to double check this, but I think that my colleague talked about that plan being followed rapidly by a just transition plan for Mossmorran. As I said in my statement, we must now work on options and opportunities for Mossmorran as part of our wider approach to”
“ExxonMobil and Paul Greenwood should hang their heads in shame for the way that they have treated workers today in locking people out of the workplace. It is absolutely disgraceful and shameful. For years, I have been calling for a union-led Mossmorran just transition plan in order to secure jobs and investment in the site and to cut climate pollution. In June 2024, the Minister for Climate Action told me, in this chamber, that work would be started on a Mossmorran plan “in early 2025”. Where is the plan? There is no mention of it in the statement—there is just a blame game between Governments. Kate Forbes: We worked at pace to develop a just transition plan for Grangemouth, which was published in the summer.”
“That should give him confidence that we will continue to do everything that we can to support”