Murdo Fraser
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“This has been quite a lively debate so far. I might take a slightly more sympathetic approach to Reform than other colleagues who have spoken. To be fair to Reform members, they have been on a steep learning curve in relation to how they approach debates in the Parliament.”
“After all the promises that were made about Reform members coming in to shake this place up, they cannot even get the basics right. If these are the foxes in the hen house, the chickens will be sleeping pretty safely tonight. That seems reflected in Reform’s most recent electoral performances.”
“I will make what I hope is a constructive suggestion, which is that it would be more helpful to have a debate on any one of those topics to allow us time to discuss the issues in detail. We will all be here for another five years, so Angela Ross should not fire all her bullets at once.”
“Murdo Fraser: I will give way in a second. The only things that have been left out are the NHS and justice. Virtually every topic in the remit of the Parliament is covered in the motion, as are some topics that are not in the remit of the Parliament.”
“Most significantly of all, we had a superb Conservative victory in the Aberdeen South constituency, with my good friend Douglas Lumsden winning just shy of 50 per cent of the vote—a massive swing from the SNP. Reform received just 2,478 votes, or 8.6 per cent of the total.”
“He will know that there is a necessity in the case of individual judgments for those involved to consider whether there is any basis on which an appeal should be mounted in a particular case.”
The complete record
Every one of 699 lines we hold for Murdo Fraser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 14.
“As we discussed when we considered the bill at stage 1, there are five pillars to community wealth building: maximising the benefits of public procurement, which we have talked about; increasing fair work and skills development opportunities for the workforce; ensuring that land and property are used to benefit communities, SMEs and the environment; inclusive ownership; and finance. The question of land and property is really interesting. Just yesterday, I met a community group in the Carse of Gowrie that is looking to take over what is, in effect, a derelict orchard and bring it into use for the local community. The group is doing so under legislation that the Parliament previously passed, but it strikes me that that is the sort of initiative that the community wealth building agenda seeks to support.”
“I do not think that we should be prescriptive as to what that target is, and I do not think that the Government should be setting that target; it should be set by the local partners. That principle was an important one. I am very pleased that the committee agreed on that and was able to get it into the bill, tweaking the wording at stage 3. Community wealth building is a good thing—I think that we can all agree on that. It seeks to use the economic impact of anchor organisations— public, private or third sector—to stimulate and retain economic activity in a local area.”
“We did not agree on everything; nevertheless, we were able to get the bill improved at stage 2—not always to the delight of the minister. We had very constructive engagement with the minister in any case. Particularly when it came to stage 3, there was a joint endeavour to tidy up some of the bill’s imperfect wording that had been agreed at stage 2 to ensure that the bill got to the place that it needed to be at stage 3. We all worked together extremely well, and I am grateful to the minister for his co- operation and support. I put forward only one basic issue at stage 2, dealing with the question of the percentage of spend that would go into local businesses and local economies through procurement. I felt it important for the community wealth building plans to have a target set in them.”
“Just to make it clear, the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill at stage 3, in a short time—as, indeed, we did at stage 1, when we backed the bill’s general principles. I start by thanking everybody for the part that they have played: the clerks of the Economy and Fair Work Committee and the Scottish Parliament information centre, who supported us, and all those who gave the committee evidence. I thank my fellow committee members for their very collegiate approach in trying to improve the bill. Indeed, there were some perhaps unusual alliances. Lorna Slater voted for some of my amendments and I voted for some of Lorna Slater’s amendments. That demonstrates the value of cross-party co-operation and working.”
“Amendment 28 would define the term “public contract” in a way that draws on the equivalent term in the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015, making it clear that the provision relates only to contracts for works, supplies or services and does not extend to other forms of contractual arrangement, such as contracts for the lease or purchase of land, employment contracts or other contracts not typically subject to public procurement policy or legislation. Amendment 30 states that a report is to be produced, under section 7A of the bill, containing data on the percentage spent with local economic operators by the community wealth building partners, so that we can keep track of that. Amendment 32 would delete a summary requirement that was inserted into the bill at stage 2.”
“Amendment 19 would leave out subsection (5A) of section 5, which is the wording that was inserted at stage 2, replacing that with new wording, as shown in amendment 19, which has the same intention but recognises that a community wealth building partnership is not, in itself, intended to have legal personality. The wording refers instead to “an indicative target” for spend with individual “local economic operators” “pursuant to public contracts entered into by the community wealth building partners” but not by the partnership itself.”
“I have four amendments in this group, all of which basically deal with the same point. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment requiring community wealth building plans to include a target for the amount of procurement spend that would be spent in the local economy, therefore supporting local businesses. We heard an ask for that in stage 1 evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses, among others, and I was pleased that the committee agreed to that amendment at stage 2. My amendments in this group seek to remove the wording that was added to the bill at stage 2 and replace it with what could fairly be called more accurate and precise wording.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what progress has been made in dealing with the issue of short-formed trains on services between Fife and Edinburgh. (S6O-05481)”
“That will generate Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Government—we still await hearing from the Scottish Government exactly how that additional money will be spent—but that will not go far enough. In line with our colleagues in England, we want to see 100 per cent rates relief for hospitality businesses with a rateable value below £100,000, which would cover the vast majority of small and medium-sized enterprises. More urgently, there needs to be action on the current revaluation, which will deliver staggering increases in rateable value from April. It is clear that the current methodology that is applied to assessing rateable values for hospitality is simply no longer fit for purpose, based, as it is, on projected turnover figures and taking no account of profitability.”
“It is only going to get worse. This is an economic issue, because of the employment that is provided, but it is also more than that—because as well as playing a vital part in the tourist economy, pubs and hotels also act as a social hub for communities, particularly in rural areas. Over the years, too many rural communities have seen the local school close, followed by the newsagent and the grocer’s shop. Now, the local church might be about to close its doors. That leaves the pub or the hotel as the last place where the community can gather, and even that is now under threat. Last week, the United Kingdom chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced a £100 million-a-year package of support for pubs south of the border, including a 15 per cent cut in rates.”
“All of that while customer demand is hit by cost of living pressures, meaning that prices cannot be increased to accommodate rising cost pressures. On top of that, we now have the catastrophe that is the latest non-domestic rates revaluation. According to figures from the trade group UKHospitality Scotland, the current revaluation will see the average pub in Scotland face a rates bill increase of £36,523 over the next three years, while the average increase for hotels is even greater, at £68,007. If those increases go ahead, it will mean the end of many small pubs and hotels across the country. This is a potentially catastrophic situation for a vital sector. Already, pubs in Scotland are suffering a closure rate more than 50 per cent higher than their equivalents south of the border, with one pub a week forced to close throughout 2025.”
“Today pubs, hotels and restaurants across Scotland face a crisis situation due to rising costs and flat customer demand. The latest blow comes in the form of the 2026 revaluation, which hands down crippling increases in bills that are simply unaffordable. Today, the Scottish Conservatives are calling for real, positive and immediate action from this Scottish Government to prevent the meltdown of a sector that is so important to the Scottish economy. The background to this is the difficult trading position that has hurt hospitality over a number of years; the rising cost of wages, which is not helped by Labour's tax on jobs in the form of increases to employer national insurance contributions; rising energy costs; and the burden of non-domestic rates.”
“In other words, it is not public borrowing, but it will leverage in additional private sector investment. My point is that taking a very narrow approach in relation to direct costs totally misses the point with regard to wider private sector investment.”
“Will the cost of borrowing through the bonds be higher or lower than the cost of borrowing through the United Kingdom Treasury? Kate Forbes: The member will know that the cost of borrowing will be determined at the relevant point in time. We all hope to have a more stable and prosperous economy, which might influence the cost of borrowing. The key point is that the bonds programme is a direct response to the recommendation of the First Minister’s investor panel, which is made up of Scotland’s best and brightest minds on investment. The investor panel made it crystal clear that one of the advantages of the issuing of bonds is that it will put Scotland on the map and make it an attractive place for other private sector investment that might not be directly linked to the bonds programme.”
“On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I offer my sincerest condolences to Rosie, to Helen, to Clare, to Neil and to the wider family. 14:26”
“He was a loyal elder at St Magnus cathedral in Kirkwall for many years, and it was entirely fitting when he was appointed Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, where he took his duties as seriously as he had done when he was Deputy First Minister. More recently, he and Rosie sang in the choir at Dunblane cathedral, maintaining his lifelong link with the kirk. When people die, there is always an urge to say how nice they were, even if that is not always entirely true. In Jim Wallace’s case, everyone can say that quite truthfully. He was, in all he did and in all his dealings with people, a genuinely nice man. In the words of the former First Minister, Jack McConnell, he was “the best of men”.”
“I remember on many occasions sharing a pint and chewing over matters of mutual interest, not least talking football. There we had something in common, because along with Alasdair Morrison, Andy Kerr, myself and a few others, Jim was a member of that informal group known as the Holyrood true blues Rangers supporters club. One of Jim’s proudest moments came in May 2000, when, as Deputy First Minister, he attended the Scottish cup final and was asked to present the cup to the winning captain. That match was between Aberdeen and his beloved Rangers, and he could hardly contain his delight at handing it over to the Rangers captain, Arthur Numan, following a 4-0 victory. Jim was also a man of faith.”
“Until the formation of the celebrated Conservative and Liberal Democrat UK coalition Government in 2010, he was the most senior Liberal to hold political office in Britain for decades, and he performed his duties as Deputy First Minister of Scotland with distinction. In the first session of this Parliament, he was a rock of stability through a period in which there were three Labour First Ministers—Jim was always there, on three occasions having to take on the role of acting First Minister. Despite his genial manner, Jim was tougher than he looked, as anyone involved in discussions with him would quickly find out. However, he was straightforward and decent in his dealings, and it could truly be said that there was no side to him. Jim was excellent company.”
“It was with enormous shock and sadness that we learned last week of the death of Jim Wallace, whom I had the privilege of knowing both as a political opponent and as a friend over many years. The last time I saw Jim was back in September, at the Holyrood garden party at the botanic gardens, where we had a good chat and catch-up, typically over a drink. I knew that he had been through some major surgery, and I commended him on how well he was looking, but there were clearly underlying health issues that, very sadly, caught up with him at the much too young age of 71. Over the past few days, a great deal has been written about Jim’s distinguished career as a lawyer, as a politician and in the church.”
“The commencement provisions in the bill allow for amendment 34 to be brought into force once arrangements have been made for the River Tweed and the River Esk, in order to avoid disparities among Scotland’s rivers. I know that the Government is working with partners, under the Scottish wild salmon strategy, to ensure the protection and recovery of this iconic species, and that is welcome. Amendment 34’s uplifting of financial penalties for salmon poaching offences and offences related to salmon conservation would bolster work that is being done in that crucial area and reflect the conservation importance of wild salmon. I ask members to support amendment 34.”
“Amendment 34 relates to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003, which covers all rivers in Scotland except the River Tweed and the upper River Esk. It is vital that we take the opportunity to amend the 2003 act now, while the Scottish Government addresses the situation with the Tweed and the Esk, which requires working with the UK Government to align penalties across all rivers in Scotland in order to avoid disparities. I have discussed those matters with the cabinet secretary—I thank her for meeting me—and she has made a commitment that the Scottish Government will work with the UK Government to request the necessary amendments to other relevant legislation. We also discussed a couple of technical issues with the withdrawn amendment, which have now been resolved.”
“As I noted at stage 2, the most recent wildlife crime statistics show that fish poaching is the most common category of wildlife crime, but it has the lowest level of fines on average. Fines by category range from £349 for fish poaching to £2,813 for offences against badgers. The amendment would not introduce new offences; it focuses on financial penalties for activities that result in the harming of wild salmon and their habitat. At stage 2, I agreed to withdraw my original amendment on the issue to take time to discuss with the cabinet secretary the effect that such an amendment would have across all rivers in Scotland. As we heard at stage 2, offences against salmon sit across a number of pieces of legislation covering the River Tweed, the River Esk in the Borders and the rest of Scotland respectively.”
“I thank Dr Alan Wells of Fisheries Management Scotland for his education, his support and his advice on the amendments that I presented at stage 2, and I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their support and assistance ahead of my amendments at stage 3. The motivation behind amendment 34 is to increase financial penalties for the most serious offences against salmon on summary conviction either to the statutory maximum of £10,000 or to £40,000 for the most damaging activities, which would bring offences in line with other wildlife crime and enable certain financial penalties to be issued on a per-fish basis. The amendment would also allow penalties to be determined on a per-fish basis when an offence results in the taking and/or harming of more than one fish.”
“If they do not, I hope that having got these issues on the agenda tonight and having put forward the big concerns that key stakeholders have put to us all, the Scottish Government will respond by being constructive, will listen and will act on those views from stakeholders. As ever, my preference is for all my amendments to be accepted, but we know that that does not always happen. The issue is on the record so let us get moving, because there is much that we can do, even in respect of job creation. There are many opportunities here—let us not miss them. I move amendment 142. Emma Harper: Amendment 34 relates to the conservation of populations of wild salmon, which, as I have previously noted, are at a crisis point across their native range and are now considered to be an endangered species.”
“A strategy would require action. Having looked into the issue in depth, I believe that the current auditing mechanisms of the Office for Environmental Protection in England and Northern Ireland and Environmental Standards Scotland do not fully replace the previous auditing by the European Commission. A strategy requires appropriate indicators and monitoring to detect trends in those indicators. Three components of marine ecosystems need monitoring: mobile animals, including fish and seabirds; the biotic communities of the seabed; and the plankton and water column. In my view, the current monitoring in Scottish waters is both inadequate and underfunded, especially given the great extent of the Scottish inshore zone to the west of Scotland. I hope that colleagues will consider supporting my amendments.”
“That frustration was well set out in the Open Seas joint briefing, which I hope all members have had time to read: “Inshore Marine Protected Areas / Priority Marine Features consultation - delayed National Marine Plan 2 - delayed Inshore Fisheries Management Improvement Programme - delayed 21 Fisheries Management Plans - delayed Biodiversity Strategy - not delivered Proposed fisheries management bill - never introduced Penalties review - launch date unclear Good Environmental Status for Scottish Seas - targets missed in 2020 and 2024”. There is a lot of frustration in the sector. I wanted to mention that in the chamber today, because we need to try to work together. The UK has yet to fully develop a marine strategy. Scotland is responsible for more than half of the UK’s seas, so we have a responsibility to maintain good conditions.”
“Those lochs make a significant contribution to Scotland’s climate mitigation efforts, burying more carbon than the whole of the North Sea and storing more per hectare than peatland. I was genuinely shocked when I saw those statistics, so let us hope that it focuses minds. Amendment 146 provides for the delivery of a Scottish marine strategy. I had a constructive conversation with the cabinet secretary, who is now back in the room, and I spoke with a series of stakeholders after the meeting that I had with her and her officials. Stakeholders do not agree that we should rely on the UK Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. I want to flag the sheer frustration that came across in the meetings that I had following that discussion.”
“Amendment 145 would give ministers the powers to bring in low-impact fishing priority areas, in line with the Scottish ministers’ commitment to supporting a just transition to a more sustainable industry. I have worked closely with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation on that amendment. It is truly a modest proposal. It would require any such areas to be subject to extensive consultation, and could be done only to help to meet any targets that are set under the bill, to fulfil the national marine plan or to help to achieve ministers’ legal duty to deliver good environmental status. Amendment 144 would give ministers the power to protect the parts of our sea lochs that are most important as marine carbon stores.”
“That is what amendment 143 would do in relation to the existing powers in respect of three key issues: mitigation of climate change, adaptation to climate change and the support of ecosystem recovery. Amendment 143 would update those powers and bring them to the discussion that we now need to have. There are issues that we need to focus on, including, as I will talk about, just how much more we need to do. Amendments 144 and 145 were crafted using the real-world experience of the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation. I have lodged those amendments again because I want to ensure that the Scottish Government has real plans to make such changes. If those amendments are agreed to, they would make Scotland a true leader. At the very least, I want to get the issues properly on the record.”
“It follows on from amendment 328 that was agreed to at stage 2, which added wording on climate adaptation to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. I was very pleased that the Government was able to support that amendment and I hope that it can take a constructive and positive approach to my amendment 143. Currently, the definition in the 1984 act speaks about “conserving ... the natural beauty ... of marine or coastal areas ... or ... conserving flora or fauna which are dependent on ... a marine or coastal environment.” However, given our understanding now of the role that the marine environment can play in tackling climate change—for example, through carbon absorption—the definition needs to be updated.”
“Amendment 142 seeks to amend the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 to require the national marine plan—or, as the case may be, a regional marine plan—to contribute to the delivery of any relevant nature recovery targets to be set following the passage of the bill. It would ensure that the future national marine plan included policies that actively drove the recovery of marine biodiversity. There is an on-going debate about the role and shape of marine planning, which was discussed during stage 2. Amendment 142 is an important opportunity to explicitly link the national marine plan with nature recovery targets. That would help to embed nature recovery as a core objective of marine planning. My amendment 143 seeks to update the definition of “marine environmental purposes” in section 2A of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984.”
“Amendment 142, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is grouped with amendments 34, 21, 143 to 147, 160 and 170. Sarah Boyack: [Inaudible.] Apologies, I have been in the chamber for some time but forgot to put the card back in. I have five amendments in the group. Given our timings tonight, I will focus on my amendments, although I strongly support Maurice Golden’s amendment 21, to which he will speak later on. I thank the Marine Conservation Society, the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, which have been incredibly helpful in pulling together my amendment 142 and getting it in front of members.”
“I am very interested in the relationship and the funding arrangements between SSRS and the various little organisations of volunteers, and in how that funding is tracked to see how effective it is. I do not think that the Government or legislation has a place in that; I think that it is a matter for NatureScot, which disburses quite a bit of the funding, to audit and track the money and see where it is going. I cannot support amendment 171, but I very much support the sentiments within it. 21:15 The Presiding Officer: I call Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 141. Mark Ruskell: I am tempted to wind up, Presiding Officer, but, given the hour, I will move straight to the question. I press amendment 141. Amendment 141 agreed to. Before section 33C The Presiding Officer: Group 10 is on marine planning and fishing.”
“In the main, the references in respect of funding are to the saving Scotland’s red squirrels project, but the group in my part of the Borders—not the central Borders—is called the Red Squirrel Forum for South Scotland, which is in much the same position as Rachael Hamilton’s group, in that it is composed mainly of volunteers. The forum comprises 17 groups, but I am not sure whether they operate within the ambit of the SSRS. The questions that my Borders colleague raises are reflected in the questions that have been raised with me. It might interest members—heaven knows if it will, at this late time of night—that 1,000 red squirrels were spotted last year just in Tweeddale, so they are not just in the Highlands.”
“I encourage members to join me, the minister and Willie Rennie in making Stanley happy by voting for amendment 165. Christine Grahame: Calling it Stanley didnae make it any easier for the bird. Anyway, on amendment 171, I am generally not supportive in principle of embedding mandatory reporting in primary legislation. That could be a matter for committees and MSPs to pursue through parliamentary questions and, in this instance, with NatureScot. However, Rachael Hamilton raises some very important points. I am interested in the distribution and efficacy of funding, too.”
“Indeed, members might recall a photo call in the garden, when my colleague Jackson Carlaw, the convener of the committee, had to be photographed several inches away from a very large and aggressive-looking golden eagle called Stanley. The look of sheer terror on the face of Jackson Carlaw was well worth viewing. Fortunately, he survived the experience—as did Stanley the golden eagle. Stanley was a very sad golden eagle, however, as he was not able to fly over the moorlands of Scotland because of the risk that he might swoop down and pick up a mountain hare, which would have led, potentially, to his keeper being charged with a criminal offence. If amendment 165 is agreed to, the minister will make Stanley a very happy golden eagle.”
“That was done, if you will forgive me for saying so, at short notice, and there was not enough time for that amendment to be properly consulted on, or to allow the question of unintended consequences to be properly considered. Had that amendment been given such consideration, one unintended consequence that would have been explored and exposed was the impact on falconers, of whom we have very few in Scotland. That impact was illustrated by my constituent, Barry Blyther of Elite Falconry in Fife. He took the issue all the way through the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, as Willie Rennie referenced. The committee very much supported Mr Blyther’s petition.”
“I rise to speak in support of amendments 164 and 165, in the name of Willie Rennie. I am delighted to hear the minister saying that he will now encourage support for amendment 165. As Willie Rennie pointed out, I raised the issue at stage 2, and I accept that the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 was deemed by the Government to be worded too broadly. However, Willie Rennie has lodged a more tightly worded amendment at this stage, which I hope the Parliament will support. It all dates back to the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill, when you, Presiding Officer, lodged an amendment at stage 3 to protect mountain hares.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take in response to the finding from UKHospitality Scotland that licensed premises face, on average, an 86 per cent increase in non- domestic rates as a result of the current revaluation. (S6T-02861)”
“That is necessary because it is not expected that there will be a high level of litigation in the Scottish courts, and therefore there is a need to be more prescriptive for the benefit of the Scottish judiciary. An important aspect of the bill is that it provides a legal framework for transacting with digital assets, classifying them as incorporeal moveables generally but treating them as corporeal for the purposes of acquisition and transfer. That leads us to one of the most interesting aspects of the bill—at least for me—which is the question of protection for the acquirer of a digital asset in good faith. The bill sets out that somebody who acquires a digital asset “in good faith and for value” becomes the owner of that asset even if the person selling to them was acting dishonestly.”
“As we have heard, the bill classifies digital assets as incorporeal moveable property—that is, property that is not attached to land and that does not have a physical existence. Section 1 of the bill goes on to state that, in order to make a digital asset rivalrous, there must be an “immutable record of transactions”, which means that there must be a system of recording who owns that asset at any particular time. Sections 3 and 5 of the bill deal with the presumption of ownership. It is presumed that somebody who has exclusive control of a digital asset owns it. In that respect, as Professor David Fox said in his evidence to the committee, the bill goes further than the existing UK legislation in providing a definition of control.”
“Into the same category might fit non- fungible tokens, which members of the gaming community will be very familiar with. What does it mean to be “rivalrous”? Something is rivalrous if only one person can use or consume it at one time, so a digital asset is deemed rivalrous because only one person can possess it at once. The bill is necessary simply because Scots law, as it exists currently, does not properly recognise digital assets as property, or at least it does not properly define them. As the minister said, it is important that the law of Scotland keeps up to date with changes in technology and provides an appropriate legal framework for those who own, possess and trade in digital assets.”
“My colleague Michelle Thomson, who I do not think is in the chamber this afternoon, joined me in admiring Lord Hodge’s contribution. We have heard from the convener a fair summary of the key issues that are addressed in the bill. We start by asking what exactly a digital asset is. Section 1 of the bill describes it as “a thing that … arises from an electronic system that makes it rivalrous, and … exists independently from the legal system.” I am not sure that that provides a great deal of clarity for the person in the street, so it might be easier to give some examples. A cryptocurrency is a digital asset—it does not exist in any physical form, but it exists nonetheless, has value and is tradeable. It is also supported by an electronic system.”
“I join the convener, whom we have just heard from, in thanking all those who gave evidence to the committee, the Scottish Parliament information centre for its advice to our clerking team, and my fellow committee members for agreeing unanimously on what was a very consensual report. As the only lawyer on the committee, I was occasionally turned to for advice, which I was ill equipped to provide. [Laughter.] In that respect, I declare my interest as a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I am not currently practising. It was a particular privilege to be able to take evidence in committee from Lord Patrick Hodge, who is the deputy president of the Supreme Court and one of the most able Scots lawyers of the current generation. We are very grateful for his insights.”
“Where I believe that there is a risk of jeopardy in that respect, I will ensure that the Government acts within the law, and that is exactly what I am doing. The Presiding Officer: We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.”
“Does the First Minister appreciate what a bad look it is for his Government to be spending a huge sum of taxpayers’ money on contesting rulings from the independent Scottish Information Commissioner? David Hamilton is an experienced and respected professional who has spent his entire career in Scotland’s justice system. Does the First Minister really think that he would be asking the Scottish Government to do something unlawful? The First Minister: The Government has made it clear that we believe that the Information Commissioner has erred in law in relation to two of the cases that the Government is appealing. Mr Fraser is a lawyer. He knows full well the obligations that I carry as First Minister to ensure that the Government at all times complies with the law.”
“Regarding the progress that we will now make, the member will appreciate that the First Minister is looking for any and all opportunities and has used such opportunities to make the case for whisky, and will continue doing so, but we are in extremely unprecedented and unstable times. The Presiding Officer: Members will appreciate the time. I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.”
“Kate Forbes: I will begin by answering the first part of that question. It was with the support of the Scotch Whisky Association that the First Minister made as much progress as he did in his direct engagement with the President. Murdo Fraser will appreciate that the work to secure an agreement and to nail down that progress is an issue for the UK Government. I think that the First Minister did an admirable job in highlighting the issues, particularly those concerning reciprocal damage. The issue is not only about economic damage to and job losses in the whisky industry, which I outlined in my first answer, but about the damage that is replicated in the United States because of the reciprocal relationship with the bourbon industry.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to hospitality that I have received from the Scotch Whisky Association. That association warns that the impact of tariffs has already cost more than 1,000 jobs in Scotland and is costing the industry £20 million a month and that further tariffs would be devastating for the Scottish economy. Just a couple of months ago, the First Minister went to Washington to meet President Trump and came away feeling very optimistic. What has happened to that optimism? Is there anything that the First Minister can do to reach out to President Trump and build on that warm relationship to try to get that threat removed? What can the Scottish Government do with its budget to support industries here that might be impacted by tariffs?”
“The member is quite right to identify that there has been an adjustment. The Glen Garry to Crubenmore section will go to procurement in 2027, with dualling operational in 2034. That will be a longer period for construction and some of the central sections may take longer. We have to look at what will happen to the Pass of Birnam, depending on the timing and results of any public inquiry, should that happen. The Glen Garry to Crubenmore section will allow us to at least try to get the Dalnaspidal junction into fairly early development. I know that that had been raised previously from a safety point of view. The remainder of the contracts will be resequenced, but there are benefits within that. I hope that the member can appreciate that we are trying to optimise the remainder of the programme, with completion by 2035.”