George Adam
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“The spirit of hope, optimism and belief has always been part of Scotland’s heart and Scotland’s story, which is why the motion feels so out of place in our chamber. Where Scotland sees hope, Reform sees grievance. Where Scotland sees opportunity, Reform sees division.”
“The tartan army have travelled in numbers, as they always do, and they have shown the world exactly what Scotland is all about. Scotland is good humoured, looks for friendship and shows respect to others and their culture—and is a wee bit gallus.”
“By the end, it reads like the ramblings of a very angry man sitting on his own in the corner of the pub, complaining about immigrants, about net zero, about equality, about young people and about Scotland—and eventually falling out with absolutely everyone else in the pub.”
“It is Nigel Farage—the same Nigel Farage who promised prosperity and delivered labour shortages, higher costs, barriers to trade and years of economic uncertainty— Malcolm Offord: Will the member take an intervention? George Adam:—and now he is back, demanding that Scotland trusts him again.”
“What Scotland needs is confidence in ourselves—confidence to build our communities and confidence in our ability to build a fair economy that works for everyone. We need confidence that our future is not bound up in the bitterness and division offered by Reform UK.”
“George Adam: His lordship’s argument is that it is slightly better than it is for somebody else next door. That is complete and utter nonsense. Presiding Officer, I used to be in the motor industry—if someone sold you a second-hand car that immediately burst into flames, you would not turn up and ask for a second one, would you?”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for George Adam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“That is a built-in conflict, and surely that alone is a reason for some sort of reform. I have further concerns with trade associations providing training. When I asked questions about that at a committee meeting, we heard that 40 per cent of the money that SDS receives—public money—goes into back-of-house costs rather than into the training. That is in comparison to colleges, where more than 90 per cent of the money received goes into training. I have a concern about that as well. It is not right, and there must be another way of doing it. At the committee meeting, Damien Yeates of SDS presented a narrative that suggests that SDS is the only organisation that is capable of delivering apprenticeship services effectively.”
“SDS can see its empire shrinking, and what better way is there to make folk nervous than by just flinging out a cost of £30 million? We are dealing with people’s lives and their livelihoods—those doing their training and those who work for SDS. Of course I suspect that it is a tactic from SDS; if you cannot win with principle, chuck in a scary number and hope that Parliament loses its nerve. I do not buy it, and I do not believe that anybody else buys it, but we need to ensure that the figures are solid. It is not as if SDS has a clean record. For years, it has been referee and player—delivering training programmes while also shaping the system. It has handed out contracts to training providers that are also trade associations that represent employers while taking public money to train their workforce.”
“Does George Adam believe that the Government figures should now be subject to independent financial analysis to determine whether they show the right amounts, in order to move the process forward? George Adam: I will tell the member one thing: I believe that SDS has been part of the problem. We have an organisation not playing ball, fighting for its very survival in any way that it can and not giving the information that we need. That may be the reason why the Government is struggling to get the bottom-line figures that we all need. I ask SDS to get its head together, get into the game and make sure that we can deliver. SDS talks up the risks. The bill is about taking apprenticeships out of SDS’s hands and putting them into the SFC’s.”
“The Scottish Government’s figures in the financial memorandum are illustrative, but somebody’s figures clearly do not add up. Somebody is at it and, from what I have heard, I believe that it is Mr Yeates and SDS. Others may come to another conclusion. This is important, because of all the people who I mentioned, including the more than 200 staff who will be transferred, who deserve straight answers and not scare stories. As someone who has gone through a TUPE process when I worked in the real world, I know that what is being said at the moment is not what people want to hear when such a process is happening. They want to hear clear facts. I blame SDS, as much as anyone else. Miles Briggs: The amount of money that we are talking about has been at the heart of major concerns.”
“Some may say that he had a positive story to tell us and some may add that it was a story about the delivery of key Scottish Government goals on training and skills. That would have been a sensible way forward, but it was not the one that Mr Yeates took. He came here to say that the cost of moving the staff and pensions across to the Scottish Funding Council would be more like £30 million. I do not know which fag packet that was written on the back of, but it shows part of the problem with the debate on the bill. Who do we believe? Which figures do we believe in this scenario? It is important for those who we represent and those who are on the training schemes that we have clarity about the figures, and it is also important for those who work for Skills Development Scotland.”
“Currently, we have too many agencies tripping over one other, with too much duplication and not enough focus on the important people—those who are being trained. I get that. I support the Government on it, and that is what the bill is about. During the stage 1 evidence, we heard many of those who are involved in the sector trying to come up with better ways of working and ensure that we have a robust process that can deliver. We then heard from Skills Development Scotland, whose views were made plain—and painfully— regarding its role in apprenticeships. SDS has delivered many apprenticeships over the years and has done a good job up to now, but we have to move on and see what more we can do. While the committee was taking evidence, we heard from Skills Development Scotland’s Damien Yeates.”
“I will get the niceties over first, like everyone else. I thank Graeme Dey for his work and I say to the minister, Ben Macpherson, “All the best, mate.” My original version of the speech was quite ragey, because certain individuals who gave evidence on the bill created an inner rage in me. Willie Rennie was quite right when he suggested that those who supported the bill were very “meh” about it and that those who were against it were extremely passionate in giving their reasons for that. It was one of those individuals who almost created my “George smash!” moment with his comments. Ross Greer is right that the bill should proceed to stage 2 to allow us to look at other ideas and see how we can take it forward. The bill was supposed to declutter, tidy up and provide a better version of our skills systems.”
“Liz Smith MSP’s proposals to adopt a transitional or phased approach to delivery, alongside the potential targeting of funding to support primary school pupils with additional support needs or in deprived circumstances, are truly welcomed in that regard. We had further discussion on some of those aspects in our meeting last week. However, the total costs that are cited in the financial memorandum are extensive, and they underestimate the total potential costs of the bill as introduced. We need to zone in on those aspects ahead of stage 2, because it is about not just the costs on the face of the bill but unknown costs as well.”
“Among the many issues with the bill as it is currently drafted, which has been mentioned today, is the issue of costings. How did the member in charge improve the cost estimates, and is the financial memorandum still, at best, a guesstimate and, at worst, a complete fiscal fantasy? Will the minister also give me detail as to how the measures that are contained in the bill will be financed? Natalie Don-Innes: I have been clear that the Government’s position is that the proposals must be affordable and must support equity, as I have just advised, and that, when it comes to deliverability, due consideration must be given to the expectations that are placed on teachers to organise and take part in the trips.”
“Previously, I have spoken about the normalisation of food banks and clothing banks in our schools. Our teachers are stepping up to meet what is now a societal need, but they should not have to do so. That is one of the reasons why I have commissioned independent advice on school funding, which is being led by John Wilson, a very experienced former headteacher. He will look at, for example, what comes next after the Scottish attainment challenge and the pupil equity fund. I encourage all members to engage with Mr Wilson’s review and to contribute their ideas accordingly.”
“The behaviour of children and young people does not become unacceptable overnight. Does the cabinet secretary agree that factors such as wider societal impacts, poverty and deprivation do not help when it comes to behaviour in the classroom and that they can create many of the challenges? Will the cabinet secretary provide further details of the continued work to narrow the poverty-related attainment gap and how that contributes to pupils having a more positive classroom experience? Jenny Gilruth: I note that the report, quite rightly, makes a number of references to the pandemic and its impact on behaviour and relationships, but the impact of poverty seems to be omitted. Austerity has harmed the outcomes of some of Scotland’s most vulnerable families, including children.”
“Their arrangements cut down on the confusion that many people feel about who they would actually report something to. The message is clear: Scotland needs commissioners, but it does not need more clutter. We need a system that is leaner, clearer and stronger. I, for one, am happy to work and talk with anyone who wants to look at doing such work, because that is what will make the difference as we take the recommendations forward. 16:42”
“That would provide efficiencies through shared use of administrative functions, and a united office could ensure common standards and reports and a joint strategic focus. With regard to how such an office would be structured, we could discuss that another day, because I do not think that I have the time to discuss it today. Perhaps we could look at a chief commissioner, with other commissioners reporting to them. I will leave it at that for today. It is important that we look at the different ideas out there. Some of the Nordic countries have a similar population to that of Scotland, but at the same time they have many fewer commissioners. What are they doing right that we are not currently doing, and what are they delivering for their citizens that we are not delivering in Scotland?”
“It also gives those institutions the status to truly take on Government and public services effectively. We have to create the most effective and coherent system that we possibly can. The committee’s report, at paragraph 165, points to making better use of the public sector estate. Again, I highlight that we have half a dozen wee offices, when we could have one larger, more efficient office. I will go over it again: Finland has one big parliamentary ombudsman, which covers so much; the New Zealand ombudsman’s role is the equivalent of three Scottish commissioners. We could go even further and consider the idea of having an office of commissioners, all under one roof, with shared administrative and back-of-house support.”
“It should show us where functions overlap and where we can streamline them. We need coherence rather than clutter, which is what I want to talk about. Let us look at our Nordic neighbours such as Finland, Denmark and Norway. As I think has been mentioned already, they do not scatter powers across a dozen wee offices all over the country—they have ombudsmen with big, broad remits. In Finland, the parliamentary ombudsman covers complaints, detention, monitoring and even human rights oversight. In New Zealand, the ombudsman handles freedom of information requests as well as maladministration. Those countries all have fewer institutions with bigger remits, which offers clarity for citizens. Does that type of model cost less? Not always, but it can deliver economies of scale and avoid duplication.”
“The committee has completed some good work on the issue and has given us a chance to look at the best way forward. During my time as a minister, I worked with two Information Commissioners. Although they were very different people, they were both very good to work with and at doing the work, so none of what I am about to say has anything to do with any of the commissioners or the work that they do—it is more about how we can do this work better. The SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee is clear when it says that we need stronger criteria for creating new commissioners. We cannot continue to add another commissioner every time there is a flashpoint or a challenging situation. Paragraph 142 of the committee’s report calls for a mapping of all our public bodies, which is happening through our public service reform strategy.”
“I come to the debate from a specific perspective, having held many roles in the Parliament—from back bencher to chief whip to Minister for Parliamentary Business and then back to back bencher again. I have been on nearly every committee in the Parliament at some point during my time here. In fact, my role has been such that Martin Whitfield has been trying to get me on a free transfer to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for some time, so that he can make use of the particular set of skills that I seem to have. Today’s debate gives us a chance to take a serious look at Scotland’s commissioner landscape and to ask whether we are getting the best value for the people we represent and the representation that they need.”
“That is shameful and weak. More than 63,000 lives have been lost. Women and children have been starved, bombed and buried while the world looks on. Recognition of Palestine is not charity—it is justice. There should be a ceasefire now. Stop the arms sales and recognise Palestine as a state, unconditionally and irreversibly. Nae mair excuses, nae mair delays— Palestine must be free, and Scotland stands with it. 16:29”
“That film lays it bare: doctors, the very people who are trying to save lives, are being deliberately targeted. That is not random—it is a systematic attack on the professional classes of Palestine. If the doctors, the teachers and the lawyers are killed, that makes statehood harder. Even worse, it crushes hope itself, and that is unforgivable. That is why recognition of Palestine is so important. It is not a gift to be handed out. That recognition must be unconditional and irreversible, and it must come with consequences for those who have continued this horror. More than 140 countries, including Ireland, Norway, Spain and Slovenia, have recognised Palestine, yet the UK still drags its feet. Keir Starmer talks about recognition and then ties it to conditions dictated by the very state that is starving children in Gaza.”
“Now they have their own children, and yet we are still shouting, marching and demanding the very same things. More than 63,000 people—women, men and children—are gone, wiped out by bombs and bullets, and now by hunger. Families have been slaughtered while queuing for food. Let me say that again: families have been slaughtered queuing for food. Parents in Gaza have been forced to choose between their children starving to death or being shot trying to find a loaf of bread. That is not defence—that is barbarity. Paisley for Palestine has kept the struggle alive in our community. Its members have marched, held vigils and stood shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinian people. One of the most powerful moments was the presentation of “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack” that they had.”
“However, there comes a time, regardless of our own views and regardless of our politics, when we say, “Enough is enough.” The genocide in Gaza has to end. Earlier today, I mentioned the targeting of 247 journalists during the conflict. We must understand how wrong that is. This debate is not just politics for me—the plight of the people of Palestine has been a major issue for me for a very long time. I have been demonstrating on the streets for Palestine for decades; I remember taking my children to demonstrations when they were young. Jessica and James loved the colour of the spectacle. They grew up with chants for justice in their ears, flags in their hands and an understanding that silence in the face of injustice is never an option.”
“This is a difficult and emotional speech for me to make in this debate. I am an emotional person, as we all know, and my first thoughts were to go down that route. I listened to Jackson Carlaw and have considered how he put his point of view across, and although I disagreed with much of what he said, I am glad that it was Jackson Carlaw who was expressing that point of view for the Conservatives. I do not think that it would have been handled as well by any of his other colleagues. I am aware of how difficult peace in the middle east is. It will not happen overnight. I believe that Scotland’s voice has to be heard, and it is right that Scotland’s Parliament should discuss this issue. There is also the inhumanity of what Hamas did in October 2023 to take into account.”
“At an event just before the end of the recess, I was reminded of a quote by the late former Presiding Officer George Reid, who, in a debate on the Iraq war in this Parliament in 2003, said that the first victim of the war was the truth. That relates directly to the comment that Mr Adam has put to me. On this occasion, it is important that we remember the fine and distinguished words of one of the greatest colleagues I have ever had, George Reid, who gave us an insight into the dangers that Mr Adam has raised with me today.”
“Will the First Minister comment on the number of journalists who have been killed during the conflict? Two hundred and forty-seven have been killed, which is more than have been killed in every conflict since the first world war. Does he agree that people in the media must be allowed to continue to tell the world the stories of what is happening in Gaza? The First Minister: I share the concern that Mr Adam has expressed. It is important that there is open and dispassionate analysis of what is going on in Gaza. That will be an essential source of information for the International Criminal Court proceedings and the considerations of the International Court of Justice. I mourn the loss of all lives in the conflict. I mourn the loss of journalists’ lives, because journalists are able to share with us the truth of what is happening.”
“Scotland is bucking the trend, while the UK is stuck in reverse gear. It makes us wonder what the point of the UK is. Our economy in Scotland has outperformed the UK again, we are top for inward investment outside London and we have tripled green jobs since 2021. While we are building an economy for the future, Westminster is running an economic circus. When it comes to the problems with the climate, Westminster still cannot decide whether climate change is a real thing or just another culture war to fight on “GB News”. I cannot be bothered with that nonsense. The choice is simple: people can stick with Westminster or they can build a future with an independent Scotland in which the Scottish people make the decisions for Scotland.”
“For me, the major difference between the two Governments is that our SNP Government is focused on the four big issues: ending child poverty; growing the economy; investing in public services and tackling the climate emergency. Those are not slogans or soundbites. Tackling those issues requires hard work, and our hard- working Scottish Government is actually doing that for people. Let us take the issue of child poverty. More than 326,000 children are supported through the Scottish child payment. That is more money into families’ pockets. Meanwhile, Westminster is still clinging to its cruel two-child benefit cap. That policy is so daft that even the Government’s back benchers cannot support it. So far, Scotland’s Government has given £1 billion to families who need it, whereas Westminster offers nothing but austerity.”
“Compare all that with the approach that is taken by those in Westminster. When people say that they need help, they do not find a solution or try to solve the issue. They do not find ways to help to feed them, to heat their homes or to fix things. Instead, they point, shout and hope that nobody notices the mess that they have left. They blame one other and others. Like a typical bully, they blame the easy target—those who cannot defend themselves. In Scotland, we see action; in Westminster, we see distraction. That is the fundamental difference. I am not interested in playing Westminster’s type of game, but I am interested in what delivers for the people of Paisley and of Scotland. That is what is important to me, and it should be important to every member in the chamber.”
“A woman in her garden articulated her point of view to me about the fact that I was not running and said that I should go a bit faster. I cannot use the language that she used, because parliamentary protocol would not allow me to, but she motivated me to move forward. We do not dress things up in Paisley; we tell it how it is. We always look for solutions to the challenges and problems. If a wean is hungry, we feed them; if the hoose is cold, we heat it; if something is broken, we fix it. That is the way that our town and the people in my area have been thinking for all their days. I cannot be someone who does not think or work that way. There are difficulties and challenges, but we must find a solution. What makes us relevant when we speak to the public is looking at the job in hand and getting on with it.”
“The First Minister is right that what has happened over the summer period regarding the demonisation of some in the community is absolutely disgraceful and needs to be called out. We have seen this before in history, when those on the right attack minority groups—they have done it before and it is a game plan that they use all the time. That should be called out on every single occasion. This year, we move forward towards the election. It will be no surprise when I say that I come from Paisley. My fellow buddies and I speak in a pretty plain and straight manner—there are no airs and graces. I will tell a story that is connected to the way in which we think and do things. A while ago, I was doing the Paisley 10k and, at this stage, I was walking through Ferguslie Park.”
“For anyone to brush off the challenge of coming out of Covid is complete and utter nonsense, because that would be a challenge for any Government and it is one that everyone else in the world is dealing with. The First Minister mentioned Ukraine and the genocide that is happening in Gaza. To those who say that the Scottish Parliament should not talk about what is going on in Gaza, I say: take a long, hard look at yourself and think about what kind of person you are when you can see what is happening in that country and you do not want to talk about it when, as a politician, you have an opportunity to do so. You need to take a look at yourself and move on. Scotland has a voice and a role in the world, and using that is what we in the SNP are all about.”
“It seems that they have got nae direction whatsoever, because we never hear one thing about what they will do and what they will try to achieve. That is what the people want to hear—the public want to know what you are doing as the Government and how you are achieving things. They do not want to hear or listen to the spin from Labour and the Tories; they want to hear real issues and ideas come to fruition. The First Minister was right to remind us that, as we came into this parliamentary session, we were going through the end game with Covid, and how difficult that was. Even when we were back in the chamber, we were still a metre apart from one another. For the first year of the session, the Parliament did not operate in the way that it should have.”
“I am glad to be back in the Parliament. I am positive about the future of Scotland and about how we can make things better. It was good to hear the First Minister tell us about his positive ideas to make Scotland better, even with the challenges that we have to deal with. On the other side of that, for politics to be better, we need to get something better from the Opposition, because the Opposition—both Tory and Labour—is extremely negative about everything. There is no idea of what they will do. Anas Sarwar has gone from talking about “change”—within a year of the UK Labour Government there has been no change; things just got worse—to talking about “a new direction”; that seems to be his new one.”
“That is a heck of a track record to go on, given the success of the Trump regime in America, which has seen the largest protests ever against such policies. Good on the Scottish Conservatives for picking up on some popular policies there.”
“We are growing the economy. For the 10th year in a row, Scotland is the top destination in the UK for inward investment outside London. Scotland deserves better than further reheated Tory austerity. Scots deserve a Government that invests in our people, protects the most vulnerable and builds for the long term. That is exactly what this Scottish Government is doing every single day. It is time for us to reject this Tory nonsense. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 15:41 Lorna Slater: The content of Craig Hoy’s opening speech was spectacularly Trumpian. Not only does he want to implement something like DOGE—the US Department of Government Efficiency—to get rid of imaginary waste, but he wants to ban diversity, equality and inclusion and remove support for trans kids and adults.”
“We now have a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government that have delivered a balanced budget that funds front-line services—a budget that most parties in this Parliament supported. While the Tories were voting against that budget, the Scottish Government was investing in our NHS, boosting education, reintroducing winter fuel payments for pensioners and protecting the vulnerable. More than 60 per cent of Scots are better off under our tax and social security policies. Most Scots pay less income tax than people elsewhere in the UK. That is fairness in action. Unlike the Conservatives’ lack of a plan, our approach is progressive, responsible and honest about how we will fund the services that people rely on. For far too long, the Tories have postured in the chamber while Scotland has been getting on with the job.”
“In the 1980s and 1990s, it was the Conservative Party that sucked the economic life out of towns such as Paisley. We watched as the looms fell silent, the mill gates closed, the Anchor and Ferguslie mills all disappeared, and the car factories and electronic firms that once sustained local families shut down, one by one. Unemployment soared, and that was believed to be acceptable by an uncaring Westminster Government. Community spirit in Paisley and in towns across Scotland was tested to the limit. That was not reform; it was Tory economics at its harshest—and it did not support anyone from my community. That is what Tory value for money looks like in the real world, in real towns and for real people in Scotland.”
“The Tories want us to believe that they have suddenly found a magic formula for fixing the economy—after they crashed it, after they hiked mortgages and after they dragged us out of the European Union, which is costing Scotland billions. Now here we are, with a motion built on slogans that has very little substance. The Conservatives talk about cracking down on waste but offer no real plan, just the same old Tory playbook—cut taxes for high earners and slash public services to pay for that. They want to rip £1.5 billion out of the budget and then pretend that nobody will notice the consequences to the NHS, schools or social care. Those of us with longer memories know exactly what the Tories are all about and what Tory economics means for our communities.”
“I found the opening remarks from Tory members quite entertaining—indeed, if people took them seriously, they would be offensive. In particular, I chuckled at the line that it is only the Scottish Conservatives who know what Scots want. That was a total belter, as they say in my neck of the woods. We must give the Conservatives their due—if Tory political spin were renewable energy, Scotland would reach net zero by tea time. As we live in the real world, we know what the Conservatives are really all about. The Conservatives come here today to demand a better deal for taxpayers, as if they have not just spent the past 14 years making everyone poorer, crashing the economy and sending household bills through the roof. The same crowd who gave us Liz Truss and a mortgage hike now want us to believe that they have the answers.”
“I have heard from my constituents and I know what they expect from this Parliament. They want us to care and to act. They want us to speak up, not just in sympathy for but in solidarity with those who are suffering in Gaza. We cannot regain the lives that have been lost, but we can stand up now and make sure that we do everything in our power to stop any more being taken. Let us be on the right side of history, let us be human and let us be bold. We must provide support and stop the suffering of those in Gaza. This cannot be allowed to continue. 18:35”
“These are the values of the people I represent in Paisley, and these are the values of the people we represent in our communities—and they are saying that we should all be saying, “Enough is enough.” We need a full and immediate ceasefire, we need all hostages to be released safely and we need humanitarian aid—food, water, fuel and medicine—to be allowed in without delay, without conditions and without political gains. Let us not kid ourselves that this will just fix itself. There is no future and no peace without justice, and that justice means recognising the right of the Palestinian people to live in safety, with dignity and with self-determination. It means recognising a sovereign Palestinian state not as some token gesture but as a foundation for lasting peace. I am standing here today because I have seen pain.”
“Just this past week, 40 more people were shot dead at distribution sites for aid—again, many of them were women and children. That is not accidental, and it is not collateral. It is collective punishment and it has to stop. This genocide has to stop. Back home in Paisley, we have seen the strength of our community as it comes together, and I have been proud to speak at just about every single Paisley for Palestine demonstration. People from all walks of life have come together— families, faith groups, young people—to stand for humanity, for justice and for peace. Let me say this loud and clear: these are not fringe voices. These are not the usual suspects—the individuals who turn up at the various campaigns that we all turn up at.”
“I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this debate to the chamber. Presiding Officer, I will not stand here and give you some polished parliamentary line. I rarely do—I tend to speak from the heart and tell you how I feel. This is not about grandstanding on this issue; it is about doing what is right. What is happening in Gaza just now is a humanitarian disaster and we cannot just turn away from it. Since last October, as Bill Kidd has already said, more than 55,000 Palestinians have been killed—and I say “killed”, because the vast majority are civilians. Tens of thousands of them are women and children. Just think about that for a second: mums, babies and toddlers gone and whole families wiped out, and still, every single day, people die. In 2025 alone, on average,10 children have been killed every single day.”
“On a recent visit to Renfrew, I saw the important work that has been undertaken by the extra time partnership to encourage young people to stay on at school and take part in extra time partnership activities. I spoke to the parents who were there that night about the difference that that had made by allowing them to take on extra shifts or get back into employment. That is a positive programme, and the budget for this year will allow us to expand it.”
“Unlike some members, I see the positives of much of what the cabinet secretary has said today. I can see from the cabinet secretary’s statement that the eradication of child poverty is clearly at the heart of the Scottish Government’s plans and ambitions. How will measures and investments arising from the 2025-26 budget drive forward those plans? Shirley-Anne Somerville: A number of areas in the 2025-26 budget will assist the Government with the eradication of child poverty. Those important measures include the provision of 8,000 affordable homes, the expansion of free school meals to a further 25,000 children and low-income families, and our continued delivery of unique support through the Scottish child payment.”
“As I said in my statement, we have written several times to the UK Government calling for a RAAC fund to be established to provide support to those who are affected. I call on the UK Government to make such a fund available as part of the upcoming UK spending review.”
“On that point, much has been said today about the UK national remediation fund. The minister will be aware that the UK RAAC campaign group has been calling for a national remediation fund to be provided by the UK Government. What assessment has the minister made of the campaign group’s calls? Ivan McKee: As I have indicated, we are very supportive of calls for a UK-wide remediation fund. We are aware of the calls that have been made by the UK RAAC campaign group. A petition on the issue is also being considered by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and the Minister for Housing is fully engaged with the committee as it considers that petition. We have every sympathy for homeowners who are affected by RAAC.”
“I welcome the news that the green aircraft engine developer ZeroAvia will establish a major manufacturing base in Scotland, creating 350 jobs. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the economic impact of that investment? Can the First Minister say more about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to attract such inward investment throughout Scotland?”
“That is where the long-term discussions must start. 15:40”
“The Greens have put forward proposals for a carbon emission land tax, a demolition levy and a stadium levy. We believe that, ultimately, councils should have a power of general competence to raise that money for themselves. However, we accept that that will not happen immediately to resolve the issue that we have discussed today. That important issue cannot be a stand-off between the Parliament and local authorities—between central planning and local delivery. Neither should we reduce it to a waiting game to see who blinks first. I am glad to see an indication of forward movement from the Government, but we cannot support pupils without supporting teachers. We should not settle for reactive measures, nor can we support teachers without supporting councils, or support councils without reforming how we fund them.”
“We must give teachers the opportunity to move into ASN specialist teaching as a point of career progression—and the only way that we can encourage more teachers into ASN teaching is by making it a promoted post. That requires additional resourcing, but so does a long-term strategy for teacher workforce recovery. That is why at the root of the debate is something deeper: how we fund education at its core. Scotland’s failure to reform local government finance in 25 years is being felt in our schools. We must give local authorities far more powers to raise revenue, and we should give them the option of using those powers if, and however, they wish. It is not normal to have a tier of government that raises only about 20 per cent of its funding.”