Bob Doris
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s ambitious targets to reduce child poverty and the progress that has been made. I have heard that there will be a review of those targets, so it would be helpful to know whether the cabinet secretary believes that the targets have driven delivery in tackling child poverty.”
“They have driven focus and delivery, and have been an exceptionally important part of our armoury as we move forward with tackling child poverty in Scotland. We are seeing that difference being made.”
“Many bus users cannot take a single bus service to where they wish to go. Often, bus users will be required to change buses to reach their end destination. At times, four, as opposed to two, tickets will be required, with a change in the city centre or elsewhere to make the return journey that passengers require.”
“A few stops on a First Glasgow bus will cost £2.45, and it is only a few stops; most single journeys are £3.25. I therefore strongly welcome our Scottish Government’s commitment to a £2 cap price for bus fares in Glasgow. That will make a real difference in our city, but it needs to be carefully implemented.”
“After all, public money that is pumped into bus operators must be used for the public good. Indeed, it is anticipated that, in the current financial year, the budget to be invested in bus services is £528 million—I will say that again: £528 million— and £472.8 million for concessionary travel.”
“For balance, bus passengers, including me, do not tend to highlight when our bus services run well—and they do run well at times. There are occasions when buses are on time and the service is efficient and of high quality. We want to encourage more people to use buses, not fewer.”
The complete record
Every one of 432 lines we hold for Bob Doris, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“Will the Scottish Government consider reforming DHPs—some councils have called for greater flexibility and additional resource—and will it continue to urge Westminster to review LHA rates, which are currently frozen and which significantly penalise the under-25s? Màiri McAllan: I agree with Mr Doris. We will continue to act where we can within devolved powers, but our call is clear: the UK Government must unfreeze local housing allowance rates and ensure that they permanently reflect at least the 30th percentile of local rents. Research by the Resolution Foundation estimates that doing so would lift 75,000 children out of poverty by the end of the current parliament at Westminster.”
“It will widen the gap between housing support and rents, and it will cause harm and increase homelessness in Scotland. The Scottish ministers have repeatedly urged the UK Government to act on LHA rates. On 30 January, I wrote to my counterpart in the UK Government to highlight the impact of the freeze on homelessness and poverty, and I reiterated my calls when I met Steve Reed on 4 February. Bob Doris: The cabinet secretary’s answer highlights the fact that the UK Government’s flawed approach to local housing allowance for the private rented sector means that low-income households in receipt of benefits do not receive enough money to pay their rent, with the Scottish Government seeking to plug that gap through discretionary housing payments.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the support provided through discretionary housing payments for households in the private rented sector that rely on local housing allowance to pay their rents but face a shortfall due to LHA rates. (S6O-05512) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): The Scottish Government invests significantly in discretionary housing payments to support households that are struggling with housing costs. In the current financial year, we have made available £100 million, including £10.9 million to mitigate the impact of the frozen local housing allowance rates and more than £79 million to ensure that no one in Scotland pays Labour’s bedroom tax. The United Kingdom Government’s decision to maintain the freeze in LHA rates in 2026-27 is more than disappointing.”
“There is a danger that we will run out of time for the bill, but I am confident, in agreement with Richard Leonard, that Monica Lennon will leave Scotland in a better place at the end of this session if the bill gets through. 15:25”
“The Government tried to introduce powers to effectively allow a major change to those regulations through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, but that was stripped out of the bill. I feel confident that the systems that we have, with Environmental Standards Scotland and others gauging and reforming the licensing system, give us a robust way to go forward, and there should be a permit exemption in the bill. I am running out of time, but I go back to a point that the committee convener, Edward Mountain, raised with me. I think that it is important for Monica Lennon to come to the committee with some clear, agreed positions on amendments with the Scottish Government. I would like to see additional written evidence and reflection from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, from regulators and from others.”
“Tessa Clark, the chief executive officer of Olio, and the CEOs of six Swedish multinationals have come together to say, “Look, we are the ones who are responsible and we think that ecocide should be embedded in law.” I would like to hear more corporate voices, because when the corporate sector backs the bill, we are on to something. A number of members have talked about the need for a major change in the bill, which Monica Lennon has already acknowledged. The required change is about providing an exemption for those who already have a permit. We know that our existing habitats regulations and environmental assessments are working within the licensing systems that we have.”
“It is a preventative and deterrent bill. Sarah Boyack spoke strongly on that point. I would have loved to hear Sarah Boyack speak in last week’s debate on my Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill, which is also about deterring harm and damage. The committee heard evidence that having an ecocide offence in legislation would help to change the culture in corporations. I would have liked to have heard more on that, and if Monica Lennon has more evidence, it would be good to hear it. However, we are starting to hear more corporate voices.”
“However, I agree with Bob Doris that we need post-legislative review in this area. It is important that there is a “short, targeted review”, as the committee concluded, of whether the reasons are to do with resource constraints or other problems. Even though we are very late on in the session, I am looking for the Scottish Government to commit to having that review. If that means looking at the provisions of the bill and embedding something into it to require such a review, we should look at doing that. We cannot ignore what we already have on the statute books. A number of members, including the cabinet secretary, have mentioned their hope that there would not be any ecocide prosecutions. I agree— I hope that we will never have a prosecution for ecocide in Scotland. That points to the power of the bill.”
“On my social media every day, what I see happening in Gaza constitutes ecocide—it is a systematic destruction of Palestine’s environment. Those are bigger issues but, regarding what we have before us this afternoon, I note that there has been widespread support for the bill, particularly from Scotland’s environmental regulators, who would have to work with and make sense of the bill within the existing framework of environmental law. A number of members have referred to section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. The question of why we do not have more prosecutions has been asked. I do not know— perhaps it is because we are not seeing that level of environmental damage or because of the complexity and difficulties around bringing prosecutions under that measure.”
“I say to Monica Lennon that she has my good will, if not my absolute support, this afternoon. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Doris. We move to closing speeches. 15:21 Mark Ruskell: I thank Monica Lennon and Bill Kidd for raising the legacy of Polly Higgins, who reminded us all that, to protect nature, we must change the rules. Elena Whitham also pointed to the chronic environmental injustice that many communities in Scotland have faced for generations. Such injustice was seen in William Morris’s day. He wrote very eloquently about the injustice stemming from the industrial revolution, and we are still dealing with much of that legacy here today. It is important that we consider ecocide on a national and a global basis. Bill Kidd is right to point to the need to embed the issue of ecocide in international treaties.”
“If the bill is to proceed, it is self-evident that there will need to be much heavy lifting at stage 2 on matters such as potential prosecutions for permitted activities, planning consents, concerns over liability, cumulative harm—I do not quite agree with Mr Leonard on cumulative harm, but we will agree to disagree on that—and what “severe” means. In addition, what do we mean by “widespread” and by “long-term”? Richard Leonard: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is about to conclude. Bob Doris: I apologise, Mr Leonard, but I cannot take the intervention. My point is that the bill is well intentioned and it might have a positive impact, but it would take a lot of work at stage 2 to flush out all those issues.”
“In such circumstances, obvious environmental offences might not be punished at all. The committee believes that a court or jury should be able to “convict of the section 40 offence on an ecocide prosecution”. There should be a transferability between the new law, if it comes in, and section 40. Drafting any such amendment would require consultation with the Crown Office and environmental regulators, and such an amendment would be required, because the Crown Office described the possibility of a “double-or-quits situation”—whether to go for the prize of the big offence of ecocide or to go for an offence for which a conviction can be secured. It should not be an either/or situation.”
“They have also talked about the offence being at the apex of a suite of potential prosecutorial pathways. They have argued that the new offence might help us to align with the revised EU environmental crime directive. Amending section 40 of the 2014 act could do the same thing. You pays your money and you takes your choice as to what the best pathway is to securing what we all want to see. As has been referred to, we all acknowledge that amendments are required in order for this bill to progress. The committee was concerned about the possibility of prosecutions, which take place under an ecocide offence, not succeeding. The threshold should be high—it is very high, because of the punishment that can be dispensed—and, therefore, a prosecution might fail. That is a distinct possibility if we pass the legislation.”
“That is quite right, given the significant tariffs if a prosecution is successful. One question is whether, following a review, we should reform the 2014 act and legislate as required, or legislate now for the new stand-alone offence. That is a reasonable question to ask. However, there is a wider question, which is why the heck this Parliament has not done proper post- legislative scrutiny of the 2014 act in the first place. That would have informed us in a much more substantial way ahead of considering this legislation. We have to look at whether there is a benefit to a stand-alone ecocide offence. There perhaps is some advantage. Some witnesses, as well as the member in charge of the bill, passionately believe that a stand-alone offence would offer a greater deterrent.”
“It is important to note that environmental offences under section 40 can lead to a fine of up to £40,000 or five years in prison, but that provision has not been used. We should not pretend that the bill will fill a gap so that environmental crimes in our communities will suddenly get a higher tariff. We have the powers to police and prosecute environmental crimes, but the prosecutions are not happening. Environmental harm is already a criminal offence, which could be added to in order to take account of a more serious form of environmental damage. The bill before us could introduce unlimited fines and up to 20 years in prison, so the threshold is much higher. Intent to cause environmental harm would have to be shown, and recklessness might have to be demonstrated.”
“For instance, we heard that amending existing legislation, particularly section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, might be a more co-ordinated and obvious route to having a specific offence of ecocide. I still believe that that is a distinct possibility. That said, the committee was also concerned about a lack of prosecutions for offences that would fall short of ecocide, depending on how it is defined, using current section 40 provisions under the 2014 act. Our committee wants to see a “short, targeted review” of those provisions, examining whether there are procedural, evidential or resource constraints. In her contribution, Sarah Boyack talked about resource constraints, which are perhaps limiting the legislation’s effectiveness.”
“I did not realise that I was next, Presiding Officer. I start by commending Monica Lennon on her efforts to introduce her bill and get us to this stage. As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I heard an impassioned plea from the member for the creation of an ecocide offence that would be a new criminal offence for the most serious environmental harms. Various environmental organisations clearly agreed with Ms Lennon on the need for that. However, it is also reasonable to acknowledge that much of the evidence to our committee suggested that legislation might not be required or, at least, that there were other ways of achieving the same outcome.”
“Let us all be clear that we are talking about creating a law that would be additional to existing laws—one that the Law Society recognises as distinctive—and that it is needed. When we are told that there have not been many prosecutions under current law, such as section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, I say that just because there have not been many prosecutions, that does not mean that there have not been many environmental crimes committed. So I welcome the proposed ecocide law as a proportionate and dissuasive measure. It is a great privilege to speak in this debate this afternoon, because now is the time and now is the hour. 15:11”
“So to those who are opposing this ecocide bill, I am bound to ask, “Which side are you on?”, because you cannot be on the side of nature, conservation and the common good and be an ally of the polluter and the corporate criminal at the same time. Of course we need proaction, not simply reaction. Of course we need prevention, not simply criminalisation. Of course we need global co- operation. Ecocide laws are being adopted across the world. We already know that much damage to our ecosystem is irreversible, that it is threshold dependent, that it can have a long gestation period and that when our ecology becomes overloaded over time, it snaps. That is why, in my view, this ecocide law should, rightly, address long-term harms that are cumulative.”
“He warned, a century and a half ago, that commerce and the pursuit of profit would “blacken rivers, hide the sun and poison the air”, not least because of the unequal distribution of wealth and power—an inequality of power that we still have to address. For the avoidance of doubt, this ecocide bill before us is not intrinsically anti-capitalist or anti- business or anti-development—it is simply about justice; it is about corporate accountability. This is about establishing a principle of absolute liability. The whole point of the legislation is not that it will be a stick, but that it will be a carrot that will deter bad behaviour; that it will not be an incentive for judicial action, but a disincentive for criminal behaviour.”
“I have no truck with the shooting lobby, but as a member of the Parliament who is on the committee that is scrutinising the bill, is it right that we scrutinise potential unintended consequences? Would that not be our job as legislators? Richard Leonard: The point that I am making is that there has been talk in briefings that we have received about unintended consequences. The overarching purpose of this bill is absolutely crystal clear, which is why we should pass it at stage 1. For me, this modern question of ecocide is part of an old socialist tradition that goes all the way back to William Morris, whose concern for the natural world was integral to his philosophy of socialism.”
“However, what is important is not the number of years for which a community has been in existence but how the people in the community knit together in such a beautiful, wonderful, vibrant and diverse way. That is how I think about Rutherglen. It was a privilege to represent it for a short period of time. Those who represent it today, including Clare Haughey, are lucky and privileged to do so. Happy birthday to Rutherglen. 13:07”
“Friends across all parties will have their own memories of people who are no longer with us. I always had a wonderful time at Landemer day, which was supported by the people of Rutherglen in their thousands each and every year. It was always a passionate, vibrant and lovely demonstration of Rutherglen’s civic pride and creative endeavour. I had not known that Landemer day recommenced only in 1974, having fallen into abeyance in 1926. I learned that in preparation for today’s debate. I am pleased that it has bounced back so strongly since the Covid-19 pandemic. It is important that all communities celebrate such landmarks. Not that long ago, I led a members’ business debate on the 50th anniversary of Summerston, where I stay, and the church that I go to in Maryhill will be celebrating its 50th anniversary.”
“I understand that it is no longer Dr Gorman’s—good luck to the new owners, but that is a backward step as far as I am concerned. I used to go there with the late Councillor Gordon Clark—it was his local. I was saddened by Gordon’s recent passing, and I want to put on record in this place the contribution that he made to public life and to the Rutherglen community over many years, including 10 years as a councillor. My highlight as a regional MSP who covered Rutherglen was always my annual attendance—I would have been in trouble if I didnae go—at Landemer day, with the late Gordon Clark and many others, some of whom are also, sadly, no longer with us. I would like to mention Councillor Clare McColl and Councillor Anne Higgins, who are no longer with us.”
“Let me be clear: I am not saying that Rutherglen is part of Glasgow. Heaven forfend that I should say that. Some people say that it is part of Lanarkshire, but the people of Rutherglen are, first and foremost, Ruglonians. They are welcome, inclusive and passionate Ruglonians. Unless things have changed, they would still view themselves as Ruglonians. I want to give some personal reflections on my time in Rutherglen. I well remember my monthly surgery in the King Street cooncil buildings in the town over the years. I also recall the regular Scottish National Party meetings at St Columbkille’s church hall, where we would have to compete with the Irish dancing and the occasional hooley. I hope that that is all still going strong. After those branch meetings, if I was very lucky, I would have a pint at Dr Gorman’s pub.”
“I was scoring out my list of people I was going to name-check as she went on. Bobby Murdoch was on the list as well, and he is one that she did not mention. Also, who was Nellie Hunter? I did not know until a couple of hours ago that Nellie Hunter was a suffragist from Rutherglen. There will be an exhibition all about Nellie Hunter at the library and heritage centre in just a few days’ time. That is the point of celebrating our history—to find out about those histories that are lost through time, as those stories of remarkable people are the social fabric of all communities. I am delighted that such events are taking place in Rutherglen. My connection with Rutherglen goes back to 2007, when I became a regional MSP for Glasgow. I fulfilled that role until I became a constituency MSP for Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn in 2016.”
“I congratulate Clare Haughey on securing the debate celebrating the 900th anniversary of Rutherglen as a royal burgh. My goodness, I am glad that I am not living 900 years ago. Clare Haughey has put on record the intrigue, treachery and treason that have taken place in Rutherglen. I am sure that the place has moved on considerably from those medieval times. Clare Haughey is a real champion for Rutherglen. That came out quite clearly in her speech. She spoke passionately about the community-led Rutherglen 900 project. I was pleased to hear Clare talk about the Healthy n Happy Community Development Trust and Camglen Radio being part of the community-led project, as those are a couple of organisations that I know quite well from my days as a regional MSP. Clare Haughey also went through a list of famous people from Rutherglen.”
“It must also be noted that the section 30 order goes only some way to resolving the legislative competence issues with the bill, which was Edward Mountain’s point. There will still be a need for a section 104 order or other measures to resolve the remaining issues. The details of what such an order might contain are still being worked through. I note that the Scottish Parliament information centre has produced a useful explainer on this. As members will be aware, a section 104 order is laid only in the UK Parliament after a bill receives royal assent.”
“It would need to be amended to include provision for the identification of devices, mention of which was first introduced at stage 2, and for the regulation of both substances and devices, so there would need to be an amendment introduced at stage 3, which can be done only within the legislative competence that this action provides. It is complicated, as I think that we agree. The inclusion of provisions around the regulation of substances and devices is to allow the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to have a role in that. Members will note that Kim Leadbeater’s bill also includes provision for that. However, I must be clear that it has not yet been determined exactly what that role would look like. I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. I will try to get through this.”
“Are there other bits that he knows of that cannot competently be delivered by the Scottish Parliament? Graeme Dey: As I think the member knows, a further process—a section 104 order—would have to be undertaken further down the line. However, in the context of getting the bill into a reasonable place before we get to stage 3, this order is being taken forward, and it applies only in the way that I have outlined. As I outlined to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee during Scottish Government evidence on 20 January, although the section 30 order makes the necessary provisions for the Parliament to legislate on the identification and regulation of substances and devices, at this point in time, the bill itself includes provision only for the identification of substances in section 15(8).”
“Members will note that that must be with the agreement of the secretary of state. Similarly, the order enables the Scottish Parliament to confer a power on the secretary of state to regulate such substances or devices by way of subordinate legislation. It is recognised that those provisions are slightly unusual. However, the UK Government was keen that UK ministers retain a role in the overarching regulation of medicines and devices, given that this is a reserved matter, as it felt that that would be the best way of ensuring continued regulatory consistency across the UK. I see that Edward Mountain wants to ask a question. Edward Mountain: I thank the minister for giving way. I am trying to prompt him—I hope—to say whether this is the only bit of the bill that will require a section 30 order.”
“On a technical issue, if the bill was to pass at stage 3 and then a future Scottish Parliament wished to amend it further in this area, would that require a further section 30 order, or would we have that power for ever more? Graeme Dey: We are now getting quite far ahead of ourselves, but I hope that I will cover that point as I go on. To be absolutely clear, the time limit applies only to the legislative competence of the Parliament, but that will not affect the future exercise of any regulation-making functions contained in the bill beyond 7 May 2026. The time limit is for passing the bill, not for making the regulations thereafter. The order enables the Scottish Parliament to confer a power on the Scottish ministers to identify substances or devices by way of subordinate legislation.”
“We also have existing commissioners, such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the human rights commissioner, and public bodies, such as Environmental Standards Scotland, which could all play a role, rather than creating a new commissioner. I agree with the policy intent, but— Sarah Boyack: Will the member take an intervention?”
“The bill seeks to deliver such aspirations through the creation of a future generations commissioner for Scotland. There are benefits to establishing such a commissioner, but given the potential costs involved and the overlap with other commissioners and public bodies, and other potential options for accountability mechanisms, I agree that there should not be a new commissioner. Our committee is clear that accountability, monitoring and transparency absolutely must be secured with any refreshed national performance framework. Carnegie UK set out other models for doing that. One of our committee’s recommendations is that a new committee of the Parliament, or a cross-committee approach, must be created in the next session of Parliament to ensure that there is absolute parliamentary focus on that.”
“The issue that needs to be addressed is how we ensure that public bodies are meeting existing duties regarding sustainable development and wellbeing. For me, a key recommendation in our report is that “public bodies must have the tools, guidance, support and accountability mechanisms to ensure a consistent approach to delivery of the wellbeing and sustainable development goals.” That is a truism, with or without the bill. The Scottish Government must be clear about how its review of the national performance framework will deliver that. There is still work to be done in that regard. Our committee suggested that any review of the NPF could also include consideration of how public bodies use impact assessments and asked whether the requirement to “have due regard” is strong enough.”
“The policy memorandum for the bill states that the policy and objectives include that it will “foster a joined-up approach to sustainable development across the public sector, which will complement and enhance the existing national frameworks for tackling the challenges faced by society, including climate change.” That is very important and commendable. However, I believe that, if existing frameworks need to be enhanced, that is just what we should do, rather than add another layer of statutory duties on public bodies. Our committee heard concerns about such an overlap. Sarah Boyack wishes to achieve policy coherence. Again, that is absolutely right, but there could be a risk of the opposite happening. Our committee did not think that the evidence was sufficiently clear that the bill would deliver policy coherence.”
“The bill gives a statutory definition of wellbeing, whereas the national performance framework is, by definition, a far broader wellbeing framework and sets the vision for the kind of Scotland that we all want to live in, with 11 national outcomes and 81 associated indicators, which is a broader suite of indicators for achieving wellbeing and sustainable development. As set out in the 2015 act, public bodies have a duty “to have regard to” those outcomes and indicators, so there is already a statutory obligation. The bill’s statutory definition of sustainable development is intended to align with the UN sustainable development goals, as are the indicators and outcomes within the national performance framework, so there is a match-up with legislation that already exists.”
“As other members have done, I commend Sarah Boyack for her diligence and dedication to the bill and her commitment to the general policy area over many years in the Parliament. I also commend all those who gave evidence for our committee’s scrutiny of the bill. At the heart of this member’s bill is a hugely ambitious and important policy aim, which is to further embed wellbeing and sustainable development into the work of Scotland’s public sector. Indeed, the Scottish Government has been considering its own legislation on the matters that we have heard about, but ultimately decided that a refreshed national performance framework was a better way of successfully pursuing the policy aim. On balance—and it is on balance—I agree with the Government.”
“It remains the Government’s intention to increase the maximum fine for some short-term let licensing-related offences. We have also worked with online booking platforms, which Bob Doris is quite right to mention. We are currently working with them to promote reporting processes for licensing authorities, to ensure that short-term lets that are confirmed to be operating without a licence can be delisted. Scottish Child Payment 2.”
“Bob Doris: Constituents have contacted me regarding issues with securing timely and effective enforcement on short-term lets that are operating either with no licence or with no planning permission—or, sometimes, with neither. It is frustrating that such short-term lets are often advertised on online booking platforms and that the profits from them far outweigh eventual fines. What powers does the Scottish Government have, or what additional powers might it seek in the future, to target and take action against online operators that repeatedly offer platforms for such adverts? Màiri McAllan: Authorities already have a range of enforcement tools at their disposal. It is worth noting that failure to comply with a planning enforcement notice is an offence that can incur strong penalties.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it supports local authorities to investigate short-term lets that are operating without planning permission or registration. (S6O- 05411) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): Planning authorities are responsible for investigating breaches of planning control and deciding whether to take enforcement action. Planning circular 10/2009 sets out guidance on enforcement matters, and all planning authorities publish an enforcement charter setting out their procedures. To support local authorities in fulfilling their responsibilities for enforcement, the Government requires them to publish a public register of licensed accommodation. That, together with information on the Government website, assists neighbours in identifying and reporting unlicensed operators to their council.”
“If we are running out of time to sort this out during the current parliamentary session—I feel that we are—for goodness’ sake, let whoever is around in May start working straight away with Westminster on finding a workable solution, because short- cutting the committee system in this Parliament does this Parliament and Westminster no favours. 17:01”
“I have criticised the Scottish Government’s secrecy, but I accept that the legislative consent process often gives it a difficult hand to play. We had a constructive conversation with the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, who agrees that things really must change. We most need a rule or a convention that a late triggering amendment stops the legislative clock at Westminster just long enough for the relevant committee here to take stock and gather some evidence on what we are being asked to do.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Edward Mountain: Presiding Officer, will I get any time back? I am happy to give way to my fellow committee member. Bob Doris: I will ask my committee convener a more general question. He used the expression “déjà vu” in relation to these matters. I agree with my convener on the basis that the sense of déjà vu is a flaw in the LCM process, which is not of the Scottish Government’s making. That has to be resolved, but the Parliament has to be a key party to such reforms—it should not just be the Scottish and UK Governments. Does my convener agree? Edward Mountain: I would seldom disagree with my fellow committee member on that and I have a suggestion on why the issue needs to be resolved.”
“It will not be in terms of infrastructure or international profile alone; it will engage more of our people to play, be active and run about a bit. I am sure that Brian Whittle will talk a lot about that in his speech. However, I am under no illusion about the nature of UEFA as an organisation, and I think that I have made that clear in the debate. Just a few weeks ago, at Hampden, we saw how 90 minutes of football can become something far more than a football match. It can be a series of moments that people will talk about for decades. My hope is that Euro 2028 creates many more such moments for our country, for our communities and for the rising generation of Scottish footballers yet to come. 16:13”
“It may just have been in our imaginations that we did that when we won that game, but it meant a great deal to Scots, including my father, who needed very little prompting or excuse to discuss it. That is what football means. Its importance is not confined to the past—it continues to do real good, as was highlighted last night. It encourages physical activity at a time when inactivity is a growing concern, and it brings people together across age, background and community. It now does so in so many forms. We heard from the minister last night about walking football. There is veterans football, women’s football, which is a fantastic success, and grass- roots football in all its diversity. Euro 2028 is an incredible opportunity for us to build on the legacy of the past and create a new legacy around this tournament.”
“Stephen Kerr has gone through all those illustrious names, so I will put on the record Bobby Dinnie, who was a legendary community coach in north Glasgow, and at Partick Thistle and other clubs. This is not just about those who performed the beautiful game so beautifully but about the coaches and volunteers who bring the young people through into our beautiful game. Bobby Dinnie sadly passed away a few months ago. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful for that intervention. My colleague Brian Whittle said a particularly loud “Hear, hear” to the comment about coaches. This particular football season, in our most senior level of the game, has highlighted the importance of coaching and leadership like no other. Let me conclude my reminiscence about Jim Baxter on that fateful day for the English at Wembley when we dethroned the world champions.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the development of a new statutory code of practice for household waste and recycling. (S6O- 05380)”
“Initial draft rates proposals were made last November, and valuation officers are being consulted until February this year. However, people cannot appeal their rates revaluation until April, which will be after they have started paying the new rate. We must look at that and front load an appeals process so that people can make lodge a proposal—that is, start an appeal—before they start paying that higher amount. Those are just some suggestions, and I look forward to learning the details of the Scottish Government’s support for business in next week’s budget. 16:35”
“However, at the heart of this debate there is an opportunity to get agreement for broad support for businesses, if not a consensus on the specifics. I suspect that the Government will be constrained in providing detail about what will be in its budget next week. I will make some suggestions, to float some ideas. I was very interested in Rachael Hamilton’s comment about rates focusing on rents. That is a reasonable point, but I would also point out that a blanket approach to rates relief simply means that very profitable businesses get rates relief that they just do not need. There is a wider debate about targeting rates relief to those need it the most and applying broad rates relief across the board. We have to take that into account. Finally, there is the process itself.”