Michael Matheson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement. I very much agree with her comments about securing the economic value of decarbonisation and achieving net zero. The cabinet secretary will recognise that one of the key areas in which we need to see further decarbonisation is the transport sector, including in the bus sector.”
“Gillian Martin: I have the Cabinet Secretary for Transport sitting next to me, who has just told me that that will be announced very soon. As Michael Matheson knows, we are investing a further £45 million to support the adoption of zero-emission buses through the third phase of”
“In our consideration of the bill, we should be particularly mindful of the impact that it could have on some of the most vulnerable members of our society, who lack agency in their decision making.”
“I feel duty bound to point out that the Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood is not workable in its approach to detecting coercion.” Those are strong words—not from a person who opposes the law in principle, but from someone who is concerned about what we might call the constituency of very vulnerable people in our country.”
“Domestic abuse experts, such as Dr Anni Donaldson, have warned us that the bill “risks offering a new, potentially lethal weapon to abusive men whose partners have been diagnosed with life- threatening or terminal illnesses.” The Scottish Government’s evidence shows that, as we continue to have a hidden population of victims of abuse and…”
“As I rise to make my last contribution to a debate in this Parliament after some 27 years, I cannot think of a more consequential debate taking place during my time here. I offer my congratulations and thanks to Liam McArthur and to colleagues across the chamber for what has been a very dignified and considered debate to this point.”
The complete record
Every one of 165 lines we hold for Michael Matheson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members to always speak through the chair. Michael Matheson: The challenge, I believe, is that it is very difficult to identify, and the reality is that it will occur. The bill crosses the Rubicon. Despite reassurances, the evolution of such provisions in other countries is a real concern for the future. The scope of the bill, in my view, is not the end point. It is the beginning of what I believe will be a gradual extension of its provisions over time, and this Parliament cannot tie the hands of any future Parliament. The bill will not just create a new option for a few, with everyone else in society being unaffected. It will impose a new reality for every person towards the end of their life—the option of assisted suicide.”
“I believe that, under the provisions in the bill, detecting coercion and control would be a very serious challenge, even for the co-ordinating doctors, and I believe that it would be impossible for the independent practitioner who is to deliver the lethal substance as they, by design, will have very little knowledge of the patient or their family. We should be in no doubt that individuals will experience coercion and pressure from others. No words on the face of the bill and no intent in the bill to prevent it from happening will do that. Given the stark consequences of the bill, I believe that that is a risk too far. Liam McArthur: I would be interested to know whether you are able to point to any other jurisdiction where that issue of coercion has been identified, because that is certainly not what the committee has heard.”
“We were one of the first countries in the world to legislate to make coercive and controlling behaviour an offence as a form of domestic abuse. In considering the policy options for that legislation, it was very clear to me that coercive and controlling behaviour was going to be extremely difficult to prove, because it is often subtle and it can be difficult to identify it without the right expertise and detailed investigation. Individuals often experience it without even knowing that it is happening.”
“That definition could catch patients with dementia and anorexia nervosa, as well as those with a chronic illness or disability, and it was rightly highlighted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists as having serious implications for those with dementia and with anorexia nervosa. The RCP specifically pointed out that anorexia nervosa, no matter how severe, is not a terminal condition. My second, and probably greatest, concern relates to the provisions around coercion. The bill states that a person requesting assisted suicide must do so “voluntarily” and must not have been “coerced or pressured by any other person” but the reality is that some individuals will be subject to coercion and pressure, whether directly or indirectly. As justice secretary, I introduced the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018.”
“However, I am also conscious that there are many people whose voices we cannot hear in this debate and who would be vulnerable to the consequences of the incredibly significant change that the bill would bring about. If the challenge is to provide better end-of-life care, I believe that we can do much more by investing in better pain management and in therapies to minimise the suffering that can be experienced at the end of life. I turn to some of my specific concerns about the bill and what I think are the deficiencies in its safeguards. First, the bill’s definition of terminal illness has no expected timeframe. It includes any “progressive disease, illness or condition” that is “expected to cause ... premature death” and is, in my view, extremely broad.”
“Like others here, I compliment Liam McArthur on the way in which he has progressed his bill on what is a hugely sensitive issue. I am also grateful to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its detailed report. Having served on a committee that dealt with the Parliament’s first end-of-life bill, I know how complex the issue is and the challenges that go with it. Like all members here, I share the deep concern experienced by people who are dying, and recognise the fear associated with that. In no way do I wish to minimise that anxiety or that fear, which, in common with many in the chamber, I have personal experience of in my family.”
“Some of the expressions of interest that have reached me, which I know have come via the member, are short term—in other words, those investors are willing to relocate or set up a new facility in the Grangemouth area quite rapidly. We want to work at pace to ensure that they can do that and thereby retain the skills and the knowledge on the site.”
“Jobs and livelihoods are being lost as we speak in the chamber today, which is placing workers and their families in an extremely difficult situation. Alongside that, we are losing important skills and knowledge from the workforce, which could be lost to Scotland for the foreseeable future. Such skills and knowledge will be critical in helping to deliver nine of the key areas that were identified in project willow in the medium to longer term. What priority has been given to securing investment in the short term that will help to maintain and support those critical skills and knowledge in the Grangemouth area? Kate Forbes: The member is absolutely right that we need to retain the skills and the knowledge, and he will be aware that it is those skills and that knowledge that are of particular interest to potential investors.”
“I am much more in favour of ensuring that we improve access to environmental justice rather than taking the narrower route of creating a court to deal specifically with environmental matters. Although it will be for members in the next session to consider the human rights bill that is planned, the Parliament will have the opportunity to ensure that we make progress towards enshrining environmental laws and complying with the convention. I hope that the incoming Government will achieve those aims. 16:51”
“I recognise that the Government is undertaking work on improvement of the civil legal aid system. Given that that will involve a demand-led budget, if we are to expand the scope of civil legal aid to comply with the Aarhus convention, we must ensure that the resources follow that. We cannot have an expansion of the matters for which civil legal aid can be provided without a corresponding uplift in the funding to support it. My final point is that we should be careful about going down the route of creating specialist courts. There is great merit in having a judiciary that has a broad spectrum of skills and ability. Justice is often delivered through the ability of judges and sheriffs to preside over a range of proceedings. We lose some of that facility when we go down the specialist court route.”
“Community Land Scotland recently produced an interesting paper on community wealth building in the energy sector, which has a lot of merit in it and is worth further debate and consideration. I return to the issue of access to justice. Often, the factors that inhibit the ability to pursue an issue under environmental law are the same as those that inhibit people from taking action through civil law. Civil law is a difficult and expensive environment for anyone to access, and the principles around environmental litigation are similar to those for other areas of civil litigation. The key way in which we can make progress in that area is through reform of our legal aid system to ensure that it is much more responsive and user centred, and that it supports compliance with the Aarhus convention.”
“It is in all of our interests to ensure that the UK as a whole is compliant with the Aarhus principle as soon as possible. Sarah Boyack: One thing that is interesting in this debate, as in previous renewables debates, is community ownership and the need for communities to benefit from developments in their area rather than have them imposed. Do you think that we need a more nuanced conversation on that? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Speak through the chair. Michael Matheson: There is an issue in that regard. I am strongly in favour of much more of a community wealth building principle for some assets to ensure that we move beyond the often superficial approach to community benefit. Community ownership can be part of community wealth building, but there are other models that could be developed and taken forward.”
“At times, as there have been in the past, there are environmental concerns and issues in that regard. They are just as important as environmental concerns are for any rural area. It is fundamentally wrong to try to frame the issue as being urban or rural, and it does constituents a disservice if we try to present it in that way. Even if we were to follow Douglas Lumsden’s desire to take us down the pylon line in relation to why we must now comply with the Aarhus convention, it would have to apply across the whole of the UK. There is no point in individuals in Dumfries and Galloway raising money to pursue action against a pylon going from Scotland into England if the only place that we can exercise that power is in Scotland and people who live in England are not able to pursue the matter through environmental law.”
“For example, corrective action has been taken on cost protection and appeals, protective expenses orders, the types of claims that can be raised and the level of the cost cap. Those issues have all been addressed, and those are important steps—it is good progress. Nevertheless, more progress needs to be made. I will pick up on the principle of access to justice, which we all, to some degree, take for granted and expect in any modern democracy. It is wrong to frame trying to pursue environmental rights as being a rural issue or an urban issue. Pursuing environmental rights in an urban setting is equally valuable and important as doing so in rural communities. It is not one or the other. My constituency has the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical facility on its doorstep.”
“Like colleagues, I welcome the debate and the considered way—which predates my joining the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—in which the committees have scrutinised our lack of compliance with the Aarhus convention. Of course, the convention applies across the whole of the UK, which has not been in compliance with it for more than a decade. I welcome the fact that, despite having been in government for a considerable part of that time, the Conservatives now appear to be enthusiastic about ensuring that we are compliant with the convention in the years to come. It is also worth reflecting on the fact that a balanced report has been produced, recognising that progress has been made in some areas but that there is deficiency in a number of others.”
“The Grangemouth just transition fund is focused on supporting businesses, the workforce and the community in the immediate term. There is a sequence: some funding is able to be deployed immediately to provide support, and some funding is being used for the longer-term vision for the site.”
“He mentioned Alexander Dennis, and I had the pleasure of meeting members of that company about a week ago in recognition of the important role that it plays. On the point about immediate action, it is well understood that, although project willow outlines plans for the short to medium term, depending on the project, there is need right now. Michael Matheson will know about the work that we have done on targeted skills support. That work is under way—more than 90 per cent of those who have come forward for a training needs assessment have had it completed. An enhanced package of support is available as part of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, and we are open to suggestions, most of which come through Falkirk Council, to ensure that the resources are targeted most effectively.”
“Secondly, the task force is to be welcomed and I acknowledge its work to date. However, in the medium to longer term, we require a governance process for driving investment in Grangemouth that will ensure that the type of capital funding that is needed is deployed strategically and aligns with the long-term vision for the area, and I do not think that the task force will be able to achieve that. Is the Government open to looking at the long-term governance arrangements for investment in the area in the medium to long term? Kate Forbes: I counted two questions, so it was easier to note them down—I thank Michael Matheson for that. His question about the long-term governance arrangements is absolutely legitimate. I will take that away and speak to him in detail about what he thinks would be most appropriate.”
“I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s statement. As she rightly recognised, many of the potential projects that project willow has identified would take significant time to be developed. Some of them would not be developed until into the 2030s and would require a significant deployment of capital investment in order for their potential to be realised. Therefore, I will make two points to the Deputy First Minister. First, what further immediate action can be taken to support not only the Grangemouth economy but the wider Falkirk economy, which has been hit by the loss of jobs at the refinery and, in recent months, at Alexander Dennis? Could some of the £25 million that the Scottish Government has provided for immediate action be deployed more widely in the Falkirk Council area in order to support employment opportunities?”
“Although that is moving in the right direction, the bill could go further on that. Rhoda Grant was correct to highlight the announcement this week of the Clan Donald Lands Trust sale of the Sleat peninsula. My understanding is that the community has very little engagement with the landowner and has had no notification that half of the peninsula was about to be sold. The landowners have not engaged with the local community in any meaningful way in developing their local plan. That is a very good example of exactly what should not be happening and why the bill is needed. I hope that the strengthening provisions that have been suggested by the committee, if the Parliament agrees to them, will help to address that type of issue in the future. 16:16”
“I will touch on three particular areas that I hope the minister would be open to considering for stage 2 amendments. The first relates to the public interest test provision. I understand that the Government’s position is that a combination of the lotting provisions and the transfer test provisions ultimately delivers a public interest test in the bill. However, the original consultation was clear on the need for a public interest test, and I hope that we can consider putting a public interest test policy objective on a statutory footing in the bill. The second area relates to sites of community significance. The bill could go further on that and make provision for clear procedure and criteria for how applications for sites of community significance could be provided. The third area would be to improve the prior notification process.”
“It is worth reflecting on the progress that has been made to date. A primary land reform objective is to seek to reduce the concentration of land ownership, and to see greater diversification of ownership of land, in Scotland. Despite the repeated pieces of legislation that have been passed over the past 25-plus years, however, very limited progress has been made. There have been some successful community buyout projects, but—as Liam McArthur pointed out in his contribution—land ownership continues to be very much concentrated in a few hands, as the work by Andy Wightman clearly demonstrates. The committee’s recommendations are focused on strengthening the bill. If the Government is minded to take forward some of those recommendations, it will significantly improve the bill and what it seeks to achieve.”
“To be fair to Mr Gallie, is it not the case that a provision in the 2003 act—namely, that there be retrospective changes to limited partnerships—was deemed by the courts to be confiscation of property, and therefore in breach of article 1 of the first protocol to the ECHR? All the officials who are sitting at the back of the chamber today should be looking at their law books to see whether history will not repeat itself here. Michael Matheson: I am not disputing the position that the courts have taken on a particular provision in the 2003 act, but I think that history will show that, in general, Mr Gallie was incorrect. Despite the political sabre rattling that often goes on when it comes to land reform legislation, I think—no, I know—that there is a broad consensus on the need for continued reform.”
“As those of us who have been in Parliament for a few years will know, he was often adept at using colourful language in describing various issues of concern. However, I say, with all due respect to Phil, that I think that history will show that he was wrong in the light of what the 2003 act has contributed— Fergus Ewing: Will Michael Matheson give way? Michael Matheson: I give way to Mr Ewing, who I suspect was involved in that debate back in 2002. Fergus Ewing: Michael Matheson’s suspicion is correct, and I feel that I should stand by the memory of my friend, the late and much-missed Phil Gallie.”
“As the cabinet secretary rightly said, we have been on something of a journey in this Parliament over more than a quarter of a century, and at times some of the debate around land reform in Scotland has been very politically divisive, with stark divides in the positions that individuals and parties have taken. I recall the first debate that we had on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which became the 2003 act. During consideration of the bill in Parliament, the debate became very politically polarised. I recall—correctly, I think—that the late Phil Gallie, in a contribution in Parliament, described the bill as a Robert Mugabe land-grab policy. I do not think that any of the members who are currently sitting on the Conservative benches served with Phil Gallie.”
“Like the convener, I am grateful to those who took the time and opportunity to give evidence to the committee. Some of that evidence was very considered, covering both parts 1 and 2 of the bill. Organisations such as the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, NFU Scotland and Community Land Scotland, and a range of individuals, provided us with a wide body of evidence in written form and presented evidence to the committee. I also put on record my thanks to Patrick Colquhoun of the Luss estate, who kindly invited me to visit the estate to discuss the proposed changes in the bill. That engagement was valuable to me in considering some of the issues relating to that particular estate. As a number of members have highlighted, the issue of land reform has been a thread of policy running through the Parliament over the past 26 years.”
“Although a holistic approach across the UK is appropriate, Scotland can also lead the way by driving forward awareness of the need to ensure adequate protection for children to prevent them from being exploited. The criminal exploitation of children is a lucrative business for some of the most sadistic people in our society. We have a responsibility, as a decent and caring society, to stop that form of child abuse. We need to protect our children and to crack down on those who are their exploiters. We need to do that collectively—together. I hope that the Scottish Government will work with Action for Children to look at how we can effectively tackle the problem of the criminal exploitation of children in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 12:57”
“For example, our main data source is the national referral mechanism, which is not specifically intended to protect children who have been exploited. Better national awareness would help to promote greater understanding. It would also be worth while for professionals who work with children to have training that informs them about the potential risks of criminal exploitation and helps them to identify it. The final area is about how we as a society respond to the criminal exploitation of children. Consistency is needed across all organisations. Information sharing, risk management and safeguarding practices are all needed to address the issue. Services should be adequately resourced to allow early intervention when identification takes place.”
“There is currently no agreed definition of criminal exploitation and, without a definition, the language used by agencies on what the criminal exploitation of children looks like is not consistent. I hope that, when she responds to the debate, the minister will outline the Scottish Government’s plans to address that. Those plans should take cognisance of the important measures that the UK Government recently announced in its Crime and Policing Bill. Could the bill’s proposed provisions on the criminal exploitation of children be extended to cover Scotland? The second area is the need to quantify the extent of the criminal exploitation of children. A lack of consistent recording means that we cannot describe the scale of the issue or identify achievable outcomes.”
“Other children are inherently more vulnerable, including those with additional support needs and disability, those impacted by poverty and those who have experienced our care system. Worryingly, black and minority ethnic children are overrepresented throughout the statistics relating to criminal exploitation. One of the main issues is the duality of the predicament for exploited children. They are both victims who are involved in crime and actors who are perpetrating crime. When I was the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, part of that issue was addressed through the passing of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which aims to protect victims of trafficking. The criminal exploitation of children and how it is tackled can be broadly summed up by reference to three areas. The first is identification.”
“The Jay review found that many children are being devastated due to system-wide failure and that serious and preventable harm is being caused to children and young people across Scotland and the United Kingdom because of criminal exploitation. The review was able to draw on powerful evidence from young people, and parents, who have lived through exploitation. They outlined the drug abuse, horrific violence, threats and psychological trauma experienced. The report captured the fear and desperation of parents who did not know where to turn—some watched the grooming process happen and others did not know that it was happening until it was too late. Criminal exploitation can affect anyone—there are examples of children from well-off backgrounds with strong, loving families being exploited.”
“In my time as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and as an MSP, I have known Paul for his outstanding work with Action for Children. He has a burning desire to help and support children and young people who have experience of our criminal justice system. He also ensured that Action for Children commissioned the very substantial report that was produced by the Jay review. Paul Carberry often cites the fact that the children who need to be lifted out of trouble and adversity the most are often the children who are least likely to receive effective help and support. That is an important point that we should bear in mind throughout the debate. I also express my gratitude to Action for Children and other organisations for providing briefings ahead of the debate.”
“The first was on Tuesday, which was national child exploitation awareness day, which aims to raise awareness of child exploitation and to encourage people to speak out against it. Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the Jay review report. The report was commissioned by Action for Children and work on it was led by Professor Alexis Jay. I place on record my thanks to her for her pivotal role in protecting children. Colleagues will also be interested to note that Professor Jay has kindly agreed to present to members on 14 May. That will be a good opportunity to hear at first hand about some of the issues that will be raised in the debate. I will alert members to that event over the coming days. I also offer my appreciation to Action for Children’s chief executive, Paul Carberry.”
“I am grateful to colleagues from across the chamber for supporting the motion and for being in the chamber to explore and raise awareness of the criminal exploitation of children. There is perhaps no greater concern than children being subject to harm. One does not need to be a parent to understand that our children are vulnerable and innocent. The fact that anyone should seek to harm and abuse children is chilling and abhorrent in equal measure. Unfortunately, that harm exists in our society today. The debate allows us to focus on the criminal exploitation of children and the fact that it is a form of child abuse. The debate coincides with two important milestones that are taking place this week.”
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-16657, in the name of Gillian Martin, on Scotland’s renewable future, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. I call Gordon MacDonald for a point of order. Please wait a moment, Mr MacDonald, while we try to get your microphone on. Perhaps you could use another member’s microphone.”
“For Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions 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) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) 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) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-16657.1, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is: For 11, Against 33, Abstentions 75.”
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that amendment S6M-16657.1, in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seeks to amend motion S6M-16657, in the name of Gillian Martin, on Scotland’s renewable future, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Matheson. We will make sure that that is recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) 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) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) 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) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-16657.2, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is: For 46, Against 72, Abstentions 0.”
“Just transition needs to be more than a phrase, and it will not be if we leave the political and economic power with the corporates, the billionaires and the shareholders and investors, who will only ever serve their own short-term interests. Governments need to make a just transition happen. That has not been happening so far. Whether the issue is Grangemouth, the North Sea industries, or oil and gas companies slashing their already meagre renewables investment, or every household in the country worried about its energy bills and wanting to shift away from fossil fuels affordably, the market will not deliver— Government must. 17:06”
“However, I am looking at the moment at recent polling by YouGov on public support for the UK getting more energy from different types of sources. The overwhelming support is for tidal, solar, offshore wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and onshore wind, and there is fairly strong support for biofuels. The public view was fairly mixed and balanced on nuclear, and the public view on fossil fuel was strongly opposed. I think that we need to recognise that aspect. There is not time to address everything that I would like to have said. However, I will say that, notwithstanding some of the anti-net zero comments that we have heard today, which would have been more at home at a conference of the Heartland Institute or the Reform Party—perhaps one or two members have decided to jump ship early—there is a question around just transition.”
“Some people have posited the issue of fairness purely in terms of the favourability of particular types of energy infrastructure. Do people want a pylon built? Do people want wind turbines? Do people want this infrastructure or that infrastructure? I would make the case that all energy infrastructure brings controversy with it. When I was first elected, Scotland was still burning coal to generate electricity, communities not so far away from where I live were blighted with open- cast coal extraction, and businesses had an abysmal track record in protecting communities from environmental harm, seeking constantly to expand that open-cast coal extraction. With regard to the infrastructure, every solution—every choice that we might make about what energy system we should build—will bring controversy with it.”
“In its review of pricing, the UK Government must be put under pressure to break the link between fossil fuel prices and electricity prices, so that people are given a real incentive for people to shift away from fossil fuels for their heat and their transport. Paul Sweeney: The member will be as familiar as I am with the Queens Quay district heat network. The scaling of that Glasgow-built technology has been undermined because of the addiction to gas pricing, which is driving electricity costs, which in turn makes it uncompetitive relative to gas for heating. Patrick Harvie: Yes, indeed. Up until recently, there has been a complete lack of consumer protection in heat networks, and that needs to be fixed. We have been learning lessons from countries such as Denmark on how to do heat networks well, and we need to continue to do so.”
“If the world was to commit to a transition away from fossil fuels that was fundamentally based on nuclear power, we would simply be redesigning that same dynamic but with a different commodity—not fossil fuels, but high- grade uranium ore—and future generations would come to curse our name for having made that mistake. Various members have talked about fairness in that transition. I spoke in particular about fairness in terms of cost, contrasting the low, low cost of production of clean, green, renewable electricity with the high cost of consumption. That fundamental injustice needs to be changed. I wish to goodness that we could change that here in Scotland.”
“There is a profound link to energy policy, and there is a good reason why many of my colleagues in the European Green Party have used slogans such as “More wind, less war” and “Less power from gas, less power for Putin.” The way in which we move away from fossil fuels, which have been used as a geopolitical weapon by global bullies for decades—even for generations—needs to be accelerated. Some people say that nuclear power can be part of the shift away from fossil fuels, but nuclear power is still based on and would still bake in the reliance on a fixed, finite commodity—high-grade uranium ore—and whoever ends up possessing that commodity.”
“When referring to whichever reactor wins the UK design competition, it said: “It seems unlikely that the reactor will be contributing generating capacity to the grid until 2035, which is the date by when the Government expects the GB electricity grid to have been decarbonised.” The new UK Government wants to decarbonise the grid by 2030. SMRs will play no role in doing that, even if somebody somewhere in the world cracks the many challenges in making them viable. I want to talk a little bit about how this debate links to the previous statement on the geopolitical changes that we are seeing around the world.”
“SMRs are modern. SMRs are just wonderful, and they’ll solve every problem.” I was pleased that Michael Matheson tried to burst that bubble. At one point, I almost thought that I was hearing Sir Humphrey Appleby telling his minister, “SMRs are quite simply the nuclear power station Harrods would sell you.” We should attach to some of those speeches the same kind of absurdity that we would to those performances. SMRs have not been proven anywhere in the world. In fact, I draw members’ attention to the comments of the Environmental Audit Committee at the UK Parliament, which wrote last year to the outgoing UK Government expressing doubts on SMRs.”
“Michael Matheson: All of that would play an important part in making sure that we have the mix in our energy system that we require and that, at the same time, we receive the economic benefits that come from those projects. I hope that, as we go forward, we will not only start to focus on the new technologies but also recognise that some of the long-standing, reliable technologies such as pumped storage hydro can play a large part in Scotland’s future energy mix in the years ahead. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 16:59 Patrick Harvie: We have heard some well- reasoned, thoughtful and well-informed speeches; we have heard some bluster as well. In particular, some of the SMR boosterism has been a little bit overblown and silly. In their speeches, some members were pretty much saying, “SMRs are just lovely.”
“His argument was that this is a Scottish issue and it was not one that the UK Government was interested in at that point. However, we are now at the point of a new age of pumped storage in Scotland. Last week in the Parliament, I had the opportunity to chair an event for the British Hydropower Association, at which there was real enthusiasm about the new cap-and- floor model that is being brought in by Ofgem for long-duration energy storage to unlock what could be nine megaprojects in Scotland. Those projects would deliver more than 5GW of additional capacity and more than 200 gigawatt hours of energy would be produced from those new hydro projects. Paul Sweeney: Will the member give way? Sarah Boyack: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is concluding.”
“It is highly unlikely that they will play a significant part in our future energy mix this side of the next 15 years. On that point, I turn to a technology that has served us well for many decades, which is pumped storage hydro. When the late Tom Johnston was Secretary of State for Scotland, he created the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for two purposes. The first was to bring electricity to the Highlands and the second was for the betterment of the Highlands. Thankfully, the Highlands have electricity these days. Unfortunately, when I was the Scottish energy secretary, the energy secretary in England, Kwasi Kwarteng, was not persuaded by my argument that we should put a cap-and-floor model in place in order to have a new age of pumped storage in Scotland.”
“There will be concerns about these issues, but we have to decarbonise our energy system as a result of decisions that were made by the previous Conservative Government and that will have to be delivered. We have to try to make sure that we address those issues as well. I respect those who are pro a greater use of nuclear power in our energy mix and who are in favour of SMRs, but we need to be cautious and recognise that SMRs are an unproven technology. They have not even yet completed the generic design assessment process in the UK. At this point, there are no SMRs in the world that are operating commercially. We also have to recognise that, once they get regulatory approval, it will take some time for them to be delivered.”