Jamie Hepburn
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We have a full week left next week. The committee could request that witnesses give evidence on a day when it does not normally sit— that is entirely possible. Jamie Hepburn: I was going to come on to that. I recognise that point, and it was considered, given Ms Hamilton’s concerns.”
“The member will appreciate that the Government cannot compel a committee to undertake scrutiny that it does not want to undertake, and I do not think that Parliament would want the Government to do that.”
“The timing of the bill’s introduction—it was after the Scottish Parliament elections and during the period of Government formation—was always going to be challenging, but that has been compounded by the lack of prior engagement from the UK Government, despite its intent to expedite the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill…”
“I recognise that it is regrettable that I must stand before Parliament today and ask that it suspend standing orders to allow the first motion on legislative consent in this parliamentary session to come straight to the chamber. By way of background, the UK Government introduced the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill on 14 May 2026.”
“I believe that all of us in public life strive for that and that we have all been motivated to enter politics for those reasons. Maybe that is a reminder of the point that David Linden made about the common ground that exists between us all.”
“We should recognise the challenges that we face, but Adam Harley made an important point: that the general experience of being involved in politics is a good one. Just as he spoke of, I like nothing more than to engage with the constituents I represent in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. By and large, that is a positive experience.”
The complete record
Every one of 471 lines we hold for Jamie Hepburn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
“I respectfully suggest that those are things that the Parliament is capable of looking at, and I note the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s work on such matters. I should probably address the committee’s report, so I will return to it. The report offers a definition of framework legislation. There is nothing that I find particularly objectionable about its definition—it broadly reflects the definition that the Government proffered. However, I am very clear that it is rather more important that in future the focus should not be on whether any particular bill is defined as framework legislation; it should be on the quality of the justification for and the information on any proposed powers provided by the Scottish Government to the Scottish Parliament to enable it to undertake its scrutiny role.”
“I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to use the platform to set out how the Parliament should go about scrutinising the Government—frankly, that would be a rather obtuse position for me to take. I observe—although it relates to different subject matter—that some time ago, we were debating the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. Daniel Johnson, who is not in the chamber for this debate, spoke about the appropriateness of the executive taking forward some of the propositions in the bill and asked whether it would have been better for the legislature to have done that. In response, I made the point that that was in the hands of the Parliament.”
“He speaks in the debate as a minister of the Scottish Government, which I respect, but I am sure that, as a parliamentarian, he must have deep-seated concerns about the capacity of Scotland’s Parliament to deal with the issues that I and other members have raised. Does he appreciate that, because of the Scottish Parliament’s unique structures, we need to be alert to the issues that might undermine its ability properly to scrutinise a powerful executive? Jamie Hepburn: Of course, I may have a perspective on those matters, but I think that it is important to acknowledge that I stand in the chamber as a Scottish Government minister, as Mr Kerr recognises.”
“Indeed, we also engage with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on how many statutory instruments we will lodge, and we try to ensure that we manage that process. Fundamentally, if there is an issue with the Parliament’s capacity, woe betide the Government if it suggests how the Parliament should address it. The convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is in the chamber and it looks as though he is going to contribute to the debate. His committee is undertaking an inquiry into committee effectiveness; it is not for the Government to dictate or set out to the Parliament how it should undertake its work, especially in scrutinising the activities of the Government. Stephen Kerr: I understand what the minister is saying.”
“There needs to be capacity in the Parliament for us to scrutinise the secondary legislation that underpins the primary legislation that we passed more than a year ago. Jamie Hepburn: Mr Carson mentioned earlier that he had written to me. I have responded to that letter, but I do not know whether he has seen my response yet. To be fair, it was sent only this week, but he has had a response from me, and I hope that it is useful. The capacity issue relates to the point that Stephen Kerr made about the need for the Parliament to consider a range of matters. The Government has a role to play in that respect, in so far as we try to bring forward a manageable case load of legislation before Parliament.”
“It is appropriate for us to introduce legislation that sets out the broad principles but then relies on us to put things into effect through secondary legislation—I refer, for example, to the payment of benefits, the uprating of benefits, the provision of charges and the registration costs for certain professions. No one would suggest that we come back on a regular basis to set those things by primary legislation, so of course it is sensible that we use secondary legislation to do so. Finlay Carson: I appreciate the anger that stakeholders have that we do not have time in our parliamentary calendar to look at the good food nation plan laid before the Parliament. My committee spent a significant amount of time on that during the pre-legislative process of putting the bill in place, but it is now being dealt with by another committee.”
“It speaks to the responsibility that we as a Government carry for bringing forward proposals to Parliament for its approval in order to make good and effective law and for explaining as clearly as possible not just what the immediate impact of any proposed legislation will be but the ways in which that legislation might be used in the future. I take that responsibility seriously, the Scottish Government takes that responsibility seriously, and it informs how we approach every bill that we take forward. It is also important to recognise that we live in the real world, where things change, and that, by necessity, it is sometimes sensible to take delegated powers so that we can adapt to circumstances quickly. Indeed, I think that that was the point that the convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee made.”
“Before I come to that, I thank the committee for the work that it has undertaken on the issue during this parliamentary session. It has been a useful exercise for the committee to take away the issue, look at it in the round and then to gather evidence, hear from a variety of sources and bring forward a report. I commend the committee and the clerks who have supported it on that work and, of course, the people who went to the committee with their evidence. The issues that have been raised in the report could be felt to be rather arcane, dry or dusty technicalities around the legislative process, but it is about more than that.”
“I am always up for discussing how things can be improved, but I was merely making a point about whether there has been an increase in frequency of the use of what is referred to as framework legislation. That was referred to by the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I am responding to that point; it has also been referred to in the report and in wider discourse in the chamber. I am merely responding to the assertion. Although it has been asserted that there has been an increase, I have seen very little evidence to justify that being held to be the case. I will turn to the issue at hand, which is the appropriateness of and the manner in which we utilise secondary legislation-making powers and the process.”
“I have been an elected representative in this place for the same length of time as the Deputy Presiding Officer—18 years— and I say earnestly that I have not noticed such an increase in recent years. Michelle Thomson: In some respects, the gentle challenge is, does it really matter? Many of the considerations that we are covering off today are about the efficiency and effectiveness of that type of legislation. Therefore, surely we should be equally concerned if there are just a few pieces of framework legislation; we should not just be concerned about the number of them. Jamie Hepburn: I will come to process, because the point that Michelle Thomson makes speaks to the point that this is about our processes and how things are scrutinised in this place.”
“Some had suggested that the introduction of such legislation is a more frequent phenomenon than it was previously. I hear what was said about the Donoughmore report of 1932 and the concern about ministers’ powers having been a long- standing issue. I cannot respond on behalf of Ramsay MacDonald’s national Government of that year, but I will respond on behalf of the current Scottish Government. I respectfully suggest that, although it has been asserted that so-called framework legislation has recently been introduced with greater frequency, I have yet to see any evidence, in the form of numbers, to demonstrate that there has been such a phenomenon.”
“I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government. I welcome the remarks of the conveners of both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. The Government has published its response to the DPLR Committee’s report, from which I hope it is clear that it broadly supports the committee’s conclusions and recommendations. I will focus my remarks on certain key points in the Government’s response. However, before I do so, I want to acknowledge the way in which the committee approached its inquiry. I recognise that the inquiry came against a backdrop of concern about the volume of so-called framework legislation in this parliamentary session, on which several members had commented.”
“Those are important matters, and the subject and content of the First Minister’s speech this afternoon were full of important matters, but that does not mean that debating those issues should take up the very little time that we have in this Parliament as we hold the Government to account.”
“Rather than account for its economic underperformance, it would like us to stand up and offer comments on American politics or French farming. Daniel Johnson: I have to disagree with the member up to a point. Although this chamber is about devolved matters, the international situation impacts Scotland. For example, Scotland makes a vital contribution to the defence of this country. We have a substantial defence sector footprint, which this Administration has sometimes been rather coy about discussing. Is that not a relevant issue that we should absolutely be discussing in order to highlight some of this Administration’s shortfalls? Stephen Kerr: The whole point of the precious time that we have in the chamber is that we should focus our attention on matters that are relevant to this Parliament’s purpose.”
“The member describes the debate as “orchestrated sleight of hand”. Will he reflect on the fact that the Parliamentary Bureau met, agreed to schedule the debate and brought it to the chamber in a business motion, and that the Parliament agreed to have the debate? Stephen Kerr: I return to my point, because the member’s intervention makes no difference to that. My point is that the primary function of this devolved Parliament is to hold the Government to account for issues that are devolved. However, when the SNP is confronted with its dismal domestic record, it does not face the music—it changes the tune. Rather than deal with the growing crisis in our national health service, the SNP wants us to take time to debate Gaza. Rather than talk about the collapse in our education standards, it would prefer that we discuss Ukraine.”
“I recognise the importance of the matter, but I say to all members that I am more than amenable to being approached by any member about such matters at any stage. I am more than willing to have a discussion about what we should schedule. Mr Kerr has written to me on these matters—I will reply to him. At least he had the good grace to correspond with me. Mr Briggs, whose amendment we are debating, has not had the courtesy even to speak to me about the matter before he brought an amendment to the Parliament. That is not a serious way to schedule business.”
“We all rely on Mr Kerr to speak on everyone’s behalf. Yes, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills recognised that there should be a debate on the issue. We will schedule a debate on it. I have no problem with the Government bringing forward a debate on that issue. Stephen Kerr: When? Jamie Hepburn: I hear the question, “When?” That brings me on to process. The way in which we schedule business in this place is that business managers from each party come together at the Parliamentary Bureau to discuss what we should debate. We agree it there, and we put forward a business motion on behalf of the bureau to schedule the business. I will go to the bureau first to discuss the scheduling of that debate with business managers through our agreed normal processes.”
“I hope that— Stephen Kerr: Will the minister give way? Jamie Hepburn: Of course I will. Stephen Kerr: Does the Minister for Parliamentary Business at least acknowledge that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills was the one who said that there ought to be a full debate in Government time on the subject of violence in schools? All that we are asking for, on behalf of Scotland’s teachers, pupils and parents, is the opportunity to have that debate as soon as possible. Jamie Hepburn: Mr Kerr is such an impatient fellow. Of course I was going to come to that matter, but he has asked me to come to it now. Let us also reflect on the fact that it is very good of Mr Kerr to speak on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, because, of course, she cannot speak on her own behalf.”
“The business motion proposes that, on 22 April, we hold a debate on the international situation, without a motion, to enable us to collectively consider the impact of geopolitical events as they affect Scotland. We all recognise—and Mr Fraser mentioned several times—the potential for tariffs to have an impact on businesses in Scotland. We recognise that such matters will impact us in Scotland and it is right that the Parliament should have the ability to consider them. Only yesterday, the Parliamentary Bureau agreed to schedule such a debate. Incidentally, I brought the proposal forward on the basis of a suggestion from another colleague at the time of the First Minister’s statement on Ukraine that a debate on that matter might have been appropriate at that stage. Having engaged with other colleagues, I am seeking to schedule that now.”
“However robust our debates might be in here—and it is right that they should be—they should also be based on reality, facts and, fundamentally, on respect for differing points of view. In this place, we have a leadership role in guiding public discourse. In that regard, Ms Tweed and other members will be aware of the summit that the First Minister is holding to try to bring together political leaders and civic society. I know that he is looking forward to all parties accepting that invite. Public Inquiries (Budgets) 3.”
“The Government is currently working on commencement of the 2025 act. That includes its provisions on training for the access to elected office fund, enabling electoral innovation pilots and empowering the setting up of democratic engagement funding. I will keep Parliament updated on our plans. Evelyn Tweed: Democracy should be representative, but toxic rhetoric, transphobia, sexism and racism have become rife in political institutions globally. Each of us has the power to shape the political discourse. How can the Scottish Government encourage members to consider the impact of their words, especially on the democratic engagement of underrepresented groups? Jamie Hepburn: I agree fundamentally with the point that Ms Tweed makes about democracy having to be representative.”
“They have health concerns and concerns about the impact on animals and on the value of their properties, and they are worried about rural depopulation, loss of biodiversity and the fact that the chair of SSE is a member of the panel on the ministerial code. They are concerned about the number of battery storage systems in the planning system, worried about the risks and angry that no one seems to be listening to their concerns. Kevin Stewart: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Lumsden: Maybe the member should listen to this.”
“I have met many communities throughout the north-east that are rightly concerned about the impact of central belt-led SNP policies. They are dealing with the reality of hundreds of kilometres of monster pylons throughout their communities and countryside, and I know that colleagues in the Borders have had similar meetings. Jamie Hepburn: Will the member give way? Douglas Lumsden: No. They are concerned about prime agricultural land being taken away and covered in concrete for substations or to create bases for monster pylons. They are concerned about operating farm machinery under power lines and about the impact of noise.”
“Will the member accept an intervention? Douglas Lumsden: I will come back to the minister if I have time. The Government’s motion says that nuclear power is more expensive, but the contract for difference for Hinckley Point is £92 per megawatt hour, whereas the CFD for the Green Volt floating wind project, which the SNP was so keen to fast track, was £139 per megawatt hour. It is no wonder that Stephen Flynn received £30,000 towards his campaign from one of the owners. The SNP is against new oil and gas, against nuclear and against speaking to communities and industry. Its only plan is to put all its eggs in one basket; have as much wind energy as possible, miles away from where the demand is; cover our countryside with monster pylons, substations and batteries; and ignore the concerns of our residents.”
“In the meantime, the bill will have its third reading in the House of Lords today, so it is very near the end of its parliamentary passage. We are asking the Scottish Parliament to suspend standing orders so that the motion can be considered later this afternoon. I will not go into the detail of what the amendment sets out, because that is publicly available for members to consider, but it enables any review of the effectiveness of GB Energy to be laid before the Scottish Parliament, in parallel with its being laid before Westminster. Clearly, that enhances this Parliament’s role to some extent, which should be welcomed, notwithstanding the challenges involved in the process that we are having to go through now.”
“I thank Mr Mountain for raising his concerns. He is clearly right to do so, if those concerns have been expressed by the committee that he convenes. I make it clear that the Government absolutely recognises the importance of the Parliament’s role in considering legislative consent motions effectively. We share many of the concerns that the committee has raised. However, as Mr Mountain recognised, there is a limit to our ability to determine timings. The legislative consent motion relates to an amendment to the Great British Energy Bill that is going through the United Kingdom Parliament. The amendment was tabled at Westminster on 17 February and the bill was amended on 20 February. Under our current processes, we have to lodge any legislative consent memorandum within two weeks, so we lodged such a memorandum on 24 February.”
“I believe that the Scottish people are very clear that they want every MSP to earn their crust, to start working and to use the powers that we do have to improve the lives of people in Scotland. That is their challenge to us. 16:20”
“That is the massive difference, and that is what we were asking for: common frameworks and Governments to work together. Let me get back to the point: this is about the Scottish Parliament continually failing to deliver on the areas that it has responsibility for, while coming up with excuse after excuse. It is no wonder that the SNP does not want to talk today about the national health service, education or the crisis in housing, which is heartbreaking to deal with every day. Those are the issues that the people of Scotland vote for the Parliament to act on and to deliver on. However, the SNP Government knows that, if we were to discuss those issues today, people would be shown the extent of its failures; hence, it comes along and talks about the powers that it does not have.”
“The member seems to be complaining about the terms of today’s debate, but the debate is calling for the repeal of the internal market act. I spoke in the same debate as Mr Rowley did on 3 October 2023, when he and I voted for the repeal of that act. Does Alex Rowley agree with himself from that time, when he voted for the repeal of the act? Alex Rowley: I very much welcome the fact that the United Kingdom Government has brought forward the consultation and discussion. I equally welcome the fact that the difference between the Conservatives being in power and Labour being in power is that we now have a Government that is saying that, rather than the devolved Administrations simply coming up with grudges and bemoaning the UK Government, it wants to work with them.”
“We heard quite clearly the rationale for the request for the statement, which relates specifically to an individual employment tribunal, so there is a danger that we could stray into that territory. I do not think that any of us would want to step across that on-going process and put it in jeopardy. That would not be fair to any party that is taking part in that process.”
“It was suggested that there could be interest in having a wider debate on the issue, and I have acceded to that. This Government is not afraid of being held to account by members, but I am afraid to say that what we have already added to our parliamentary schedule this week does not allow us to accommodate another statement. The second issue is that we need to be conscious of the law. I do not think that any of us would suggest that any individual—here, in the Government or in any Administration—is above the law. Notwithstanding Ms White’s feeling that she has navigated safely and is staying on the right side of sub judice, I believe that there is an inherent danger.”
“The Government is always open to ensuring that we are—rightly—held to account by members. That is the very reason why I stood up to move a motion on an amendment to business just a moment ago. There was a request by the Conservatives for a statement on the future of Grangemouth; I proposed that we schedule it for today, and the Parliamentary Bureau has agreed to that. There was a request from the Labour Party that we schedule a statement on the Promise; I agreed to that and it was agreed at the Parliamentary Bureau, and I proposed that we schedule it for tomorrow. There is a debate being added on a legislative consent motion on the Great British Energy Bill. I had suggested that the LCM required only to be moved and then voted on, because an LCM had already been brought to the chamber.”
“I will set out why we cannot accept the request for a statement and cannot agree to the amendment in Tess White’s name. First, she has clearly indicated that the rationale for lodging the amendment was her disappointment that an urgent question—I do not know whether it was in her name or another colleague’s name—was not selected for answer today. That is your prerogative, Presiding Officer, and not the Scottish Government’s prerogative. Where any question is put to the Scottish Government that you have selected, we will, of course, come to the chamber to answer it. With regard to the request for a statement, there are three reasons in particular why I do not think that we can accept it. The first is the schedule that we have before us, which is already busy.”
“I am sure that Stephen Kerr has been busy booking his travel to Cumbernauld. That concludes the debate. Meeting closed at 18:25. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit. Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“I can say to Mr Mundell that, if the cabinet secretary cannot come to Annandale to sample the new Burns- related whisky, I can think of at least one minister who might be delighted to receive an invitation and consider visiting. I thank members for their contributions, and I thank Oliver Mundell for his motion celebrating the legacy of Robert Burns. I conclude by citing the national bard once more from the same source as Ben Macpherson. Burns once wrote of the human condition: “An forward tho’ I cannot see, I guess an’ fear”. Although there might be some fundamental truth to that generally, I am sure that I am not alone in believing that, forward though we cannae see, the place of Burns is of great importance to us in Scotland and beyond, and it remains secure. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I am not sure how imminent the Selkirk grace is at this Burns supper, but if I have time, I will give way one more time to Mr Oliver Mundell. Oliver Mundell: Before we move on to Ayrshire too quickly, I wonder whether we could get on the record the Scottish Government’s absolute commitment to finding stage 2 funding to realise the vision of Ellisland. Jamie Hepburn: That is beyond my direct remit, but I will make sure that the relevant minister picks that question up and gets back to Mr Mundell. I will move on to touch briefly on whisky, which, although it is not essential, is an integral part of the experience of any Burns supper.”
“It is the farm that Burns built and where he wrote much of his work, including “Tam O’Shanter”. We have focused on Dumfries and Galloway an awful lot, and there has also been reference to Ayrshire, as there should be. However, having mentioned “Tam O’Shanter”, it would be remiss of me not to recommend a visit to the Rozelle house museum and galleries, where a display of a series of fantastic paintings by Alexander Goudie depicting the poem can be seen. I was able to see the series myself before the recent travelling Cabinet was held in Ayr in November. I suggest that colleagues visit it, if they have not already had the opportunity to do so. Oliver Mundell: Will the member take an intervention?”
“Ben Macpherson: Does the minister agree that, as Oliver Mundell emphasised, we should all appreciate the number of primary school children who learn about Burns? I will be doing that this week. Jamie Hepburn: I agree with Mr Macpherson. Emma Harper referred to the extensive range of activity through schools competitions that should be celebrated. I turn back to the remarks that I was hoping to make. I am also delighted to hear about the progress at Ellisland farm. I commend Joan McAlpine—a former colleague of many of us, whom I am pleased to see in the gallery—for her vision and leadership, and I commend the wider work of the Burns tourism partnership. I understand that Richard Lochhead will visit Ellisland farm later this week. It is poised to become an international artistic and literary destination.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I think that that was a reference to the Scottish Qualifications Authority, although the member mentioned Quality Meat Scotland. I can say that the Scottish Government does not prescribe which texts or resources should or should not be used to support learning. The SQA has advised that Burns remains a vital part of Scottish set texts, including options for higher English, and is included in the national 5 curriculum. It is also interesting that Mr Kerr wants teachers to ignore SQA guidance, but the SQA has assured teachers that any text, including works by Robert Burns, can still be used for the critical essay in national 5 or higher English courses. Ben Macpherson: Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Hepburn: I do not have a lot of time, but I will give way to Mr Macpherson.”
“There were 234,000 visitors to Robert Burns-related attractions in Scotland in 2023, which was 70 per cent higher than in the previous year. The power of Burns as a driver for our economy is illustrated by the 2020 University of Glasgow study that was mentioned by Oliver Mundell and Emma Harper, which estimated that Burns contributes more than £200 million to Scotland each year via tourism products and festivals. Finlay Carson: I appreciate your giving way, minister, and I appreciate your glowing testimony of the influence of Robert Burns in Scotland. However, do you agree that it is a load of painch, tripe and thairm that QMS has downgraded the influence of Burns in Scottish education? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please speak through the chair.”
“It is bigger than ever and will extend over three weekends. I was particularly interested in the inclusion of an underwater Burns supper, which Emma Harper mentioned. I have been to many Burns suppers that have involved more liquid than was probably good for those in attendance, but perhaps not quite in that vein. However, I think that it is testament to our Scottish culture that we can constantly innovate our traditions. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Scotland continues to enjoy a thriving culture sector, with this year’s budget taking us halfway towards meeting our commitment to investing an additional £100 million a year in the sector by 2028-29. Our culture, including Robert Burns, continues to draw visitors to Scotland from around the globe.”
“Burns night provides the Scottish Government’s international network with invaluable opportunities to promote Scotland’s international interests by showcasing Scottish traditions; the best of Scottish produce, culture and values; and Scotland as a great destination for tourism. A programme of events will take place across Scotland’s international network that will allow colleagues to engage with varied groups across Scotland’s broad diaspora communities, including the heritage diaspora, the globalscot network and alumni, as well as trade partners and other in- country stakeholders. The Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture will attend events in Brussels and Bergen. Closer to home, I am delighted that, as Oliver Mundell and other colleagues have set out, the Big Burns Supper is now back.”
“Whatever might take each of us to any such event, it is right to mark the life of a person of such significance to our country’s history. It is for no small reason that the centrepiece of any Burns supper is “The Immortal Memory”, written in honour of him. Estimates suggest that more than 40 million people consider themselves to have Scottish ancestry, but our diaspora goes beyond bloodlines. The Scottish Government continues to nurture its Scottish connections and to engage with Scotland’s diaspora through key heritage events around the world, such as those on Burns night.”
“Today, for many people across the world, Burns night is a time to savour Scottish traditions, to recognise him as a symbol of national pride—as Finlay Carson rightly referred to him—and to celebrate the globally recognised writer. The global recognition that Sharon Dowey spoke of was underlined by Emma Harper, who cited the importance of Burns to Abraham Lincoln’s thinking. This Burns supper season is one that I suspect many of us will honour this year, perhaps starting with the PAMIS Burns supper this evening. I can say that tickets to the Cumbernauld SNP Burns supper on 8 February are still available for sale. Colleagues are welcome—some more so than others, perhaps—but if people would like a ticket, they can let me know.”
“That other Scots poet, Hugh MacDiarmid, was once moved to write of Robert Burns: “Mair nonsense has been uttered in his name Than in ony’s barrin liberty and Christ.” I cannot earnestly say what he might have made of this evening’s debate, but my assessment is that it has been a good one. On that basis, I join others in thanking Oliver Mundell for bringing his motion to the chamber for debate, as we approach Burns night this weekend. As well as being a much-loved celebration of our great bard, that evening has its roots in community. The first Burns supper was held in July 1801, when nine of Burns’s close friends got together to mark the fifth anniversary of his death.”
“Then, looking further at the answer that he gave to Mr Kerr, he realised that he had inadvertently said something that was inaccurate. He came to this chamber, fronted that out, accepted that he had done that and apologised to the chamber.”
“Jamie Hepburn: In terms of leadership, let me say that, today, Neil Gray has been meeting representatives of the royal colleges of the various medical professionals to discuss how we can continue to improve our national health service. That is exerting leadership in his role as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. In relation to the wider questions that Mr Kerr posed to me, I refer him back to my previous answer. In assessing what was released in the FOI against what Mr Gray had said to Parliament, and looking at the statement that he made, he was very clear: “summary notes are available and set out the topics covered during discussions at the majority of the engagements”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 51.] That is correct.”
“At a time when the national health service needs proper leadership, how can the public be expected to have any confidence in a health secretary who is unable to be completely honest with the Parliament and the people of Scotland, whom we represent? When did Neil Gray first inform the First Minister that he had misled the Parliament? Will John Swinney refer the matter to the newly appointed advisers on the ministerial code? If he will not, will they use their new powers to launch an immediate investigation? The Presiding Officer: Before I ask the minister to respond, I remind all members that language that suggests that a fellow member has been deliberately untruthful is unacceptable. Challenges, of course, can be made in very many ways.”
“Stephen Kerr: Neil Gray would never have come to the chamber to make a statement if we had not raised the issue as a point of order earlier in the day. The FOI response shows that he knew months ago that he had misled Parliament and took no steps whatsoever to correct the record. It is clear that Neil Gray has broken the ministerial code. This morning, John Swinney said that Neil Gray misspoke. That is not true. Neil Gray knowingly misled Parliament for months and did nothing about it, despite the ministerial code being crystal clear that he was duty bound to correct the record. That shows nothing but contempt for the Parliament and for you, Presiding Officer.”
“Jamie Hepburn: Let us make sure that the record is accurate in this instance. Mr Gray was not forced to come to apologise. He willingly came forward to acknowledge the inadvertent error that he had made. In releasing the information, he looked at the statement that he made to the Parliament. In that statement, he said that “summary notes are available and set out the topics covered during discussions at the majority of the engagements”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 51.] That is factual and accurate. What we have now been able to recognise is that Mr Gray inadvertently set out something that was not entirely accurate in answering a question from Mr Kerr. That is acknowledged and has been recognised, and Mr Gray has apologised for it.”