Liam McArthur
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I associate myself very much with the comments and requests of Kristopher Leask. This weekend sees the second Water Sound bluegrass festival take place in Burray, in my Orkney constituency. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to offer congratulations to the organisers, Pete and Gail McAndrew, for getting the festival up and running.”
“I think that he said that it is taking place this weekend, in which case I hope that the weather holds up, as that could add something very special to a bluegrass festival.”
“I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement, which obviously comes on the back of eye-watering rises in business rates earlier this year.”
“I have a constituent who, for the past nine years, has desperately sought treatment for swelling on his legs and groin that has progressively worsened and is now profoundly incapacitating. Having sought treatment in Scotland, it is clear that that is not available.”
“Jenny Gilruth: The Liberal Democrats engaged with us throughout the budget process last year and they were able to extract a number of things from the Government. I hope that other Opposition parties will learn from their good behaviour.”
“There are strengths in the current system but I accept that there are inherent challenges in relation to the issues presented by revaluation, for example, and the wider challenges that businesses are facing.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,163 lines we hold for Liam McArthur, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 24.
“Motion debated, That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Marie Curie report, Dying in Poverty in Scotland 2025; understands that the report is based on research carried out by Marie Curie and Loughborough University; notes that it found that end of life poverty in Scotland remains unchanged since 2024; understands from the research that one in four working age people and one in six older people still die in end of life poverty; considers that terminal illness exacerbates existing inequality and deepens the inverse care law where people in the most need of support are least likely to receive it; notes the report’s findings that symptoms of terminal illness and diagnosis can result in higher energy and housing costs; believes that a terminal diagnosis can force both a dying person and their carers to reduce their working hours or give up paid work entirely; notes the view that more must be done to target support to people at the end of life and their carers, and further notes the calls for the Scottish Government to take action to prevent people, including those in the Glasgow region, from dying in end of life poverty.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18624, in the name of Paul Sweeney, on dying in poverty at the end of life in Scotland 2025. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19436, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on strengthening committees’ effectiveness. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible. I advise members that we have a bit of time in hand this afternoon, so I will be generous with the speaking allocations and you will certainly get the time back for any interventions. I call Martin Whitfield to speak to and move the motion. You have a generous nine minutes, Mr Whitfield. 15:05”
“The next item of business is a statement by Gillian Martin on the draft climate change plan 2025. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 14:27”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time, and, on this occasion, the portfolio is social justice and housing. I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to- speak buttons during the relevant question. Welfare Payments (Projection) 1.”
“The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19194, in the name of Audrey Nicoll, on protecting Scotland’s rivers. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Motion debated, That the Parliament believes that Scotland has abundant rivers and streams, which support a diverse ecosystem and are the lifeblood of the landscape and central to the nation’s brand, economy and sense of place; considers that they are now one of the country’s most nature-depleted and endangered habitats; believes that this has arisen from a range of factors, including major flood events, water scarcity and increasing temperatures; expresses its concern regarding what it sees as the devastating decline in the population of freshwater pearl mussels in Scotland’s rivers, including the River Dee, which flows through the Aberdeen South and North Kincardine constituency; notes the commitment of organisations, including the James Hutton Institute, Dee Catchment Partnership, Dee District Salmon Fishery Board and Cairngorm National Park Authority, to make the freshwaters and freshwater pearl mussel population more resilient to extreme climate events; believes that there is an opportunity provided by the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to establish a legal framework for biodiversity targets, including in the freshwater ecosystem to ensure healthy invertebrate diversity as an integral part of a fully functioning ecosystem; welcomes the Programme for Government commitment to extend the Nature Restoration Fund to enable funding of multi-year projects to help deliver the priorities set out in the Biodiversity Strategy, and commends everyone working to restore and protect Scotland’s rivers.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes that Glasgow hosted the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in 2021, which it considers built momentum for the establishment of the historic Loss and Damage Fund; understands that Scotland became the first nation to contribute to this fund with an initial £2 million pledge, demonstrating, it believes, Scotland’s leadership in climate justice; considers that climate change disproportionately affects the world’s most vulnerable communities that have contributed the least to the problem; believes that addressing climate impacts requires transformative fiscal reform and international cooperation to tackle economic and environmental inequalities; notes the view that industrialised countries and historic emitters, including Scotland and the UK, must meet their fair share of international climate finance, which it understands is estimated globally to be between £7.6 billion and £33 billion annually; further notes what it sees as Scotland’s ongoing commitment to championing climate justice and building on Glasgow’s COP26 legacy and the precedent set by Scotland’s Loss and Damage Fund contributions throughout the current parliamentary session, and notes the support for continued advocacy for these principles in international fora and within climate and development strategies.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19280, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on Scotland’s commitment to global climate justice and fair climate finance. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons.”
“I am therefore pleased that Parliament agreed to changes that will require land commissioners and the Scottish ministers to undertake a thorough review of the “impact and effectiveness” of the bill after five years. I congratulate Martin Whitfield on securing that commitment and wiring in post-legislative scrutiny on an issue that I confidently predict, as others have done, will continue to occupy Parliaments and Governments for years to come. At this point, however, although the bill is far from perfect, I believe that it represents a step in the right direction, which Scottish Liberal Democrats will support at decision time this evening. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate, with speeches of up to four minutes from back benchers. 18:15”
“There were also concerns about the bill’s proposed changes to resumption, especially in relation to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and incontestable notice to quit in relation to tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. I recognise that, in response, the cabinet secretary lodged amendments at stage 3 that aimed to address some of the issues that were raised by NFUS and others, particularly around changes to 2003 tenancies. For some, the changes will not go far enough, but I hope that the matter can be kept under review. For that to happen, we will need to understand how the legislation works after contact with reality.”
“The requirement for land management plans is reasonable and the threshold that will be set will offer consistency and is broadly proportionate. At the same time, however, those plans must not create an unreasonable burden by being overly complex. I raised that point repeatedly with the cabinet secretary. The Scottish Liberal Democrats supported amendments in that area. Likewise, we supported amendments to make clear that the maximum fine for breaches of plans, which is set at £40,000, will apply only in cases of repeat offences. That was raised with me by constituents in Orkney, and it is something that I highlighted to the cabinet secretary on numerous occasions.”
“There is also compelling evidence that the inequitable distribution of land ownership has resulted in fewer opportunities for rural communities to invest in affordable housing and economic development projects. When those communities cannot meaningfully participate in the land buying process, vital opportunities for community growth are lost. The Scottish Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support much greater transparency in land ownership, as well as steps to help to revitalise our rural and island communities. How far to go with reform has always been contested, making agreement difficult and consensus probably impossible. For example, balancing the rights of tenants and landlords requires care if unintended consequences and perverse incentives are to be avoided.”
“Whatever we might think about 400 amendments being lodged at stage 3 and the fact that so many were pressed to a vote, that has undoubtedly enabled debate to take place on a wide range of issues over the final four days of scrutiny. The issue of land reform is one that successive Parliaments and Governments have wrestled with over the years. Despite previous reforms, the need for further action is indisputable. As others have observed, the concentration of land ownership in Scotland has continued to increase, resulting in a small number of individuals controlling an overwhelming proportion of privately owned land in this country, often shrouded in mystery.”
“This has been a marathon process, which makes it all the more important that we acknowledge the work that has been put in by all those who have contributed. That includes parliamentary staff across the board; members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee; the cabinet secretary and her officials, who have kept Opposition spokespeople updated, including with meetings at the margins of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation dinner; and the stakeholders who have given evidence and provided briefings. As a side note, it has been particularly gratifying to see Andy Wightman back in the Parliament— sadly, up in the public gallery rather than down here in the chamber. On occasions like this, his absence is keenly felt.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19512, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on Scotland’s maternity services. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons. 14:56”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“It can be changed, if appropriate, by using regulations, so primary legislation is neither required nor appropriate. Many stakeholders have already completed peatland surveying work to 40cm, so the amendment also has the potential to undo all that hard work. Further, the increasing risk of wildfire requires that any change to the definition of “peatland” would need proper consideration and assessment to ensure that it did not have the opposite effect of its intention to protect peatlands. I therefore ask members to oppose amendment 206. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Tim Eagle to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 204. Tim Eagle: I press amendment 204. I have nothing further to add. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 204 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“Doing so gives us more time to carefully consider how the necessary changes to licensing can be introduced in a way that will not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires. We remain committed to ensuring that muirburn is carried out appropriately, safely and in a manner that ensures that our environment does not suffer as a result. That is why I cannot support Tim Eagle’s amendment 204 to repeal the muirburn licensing scheme in its entirety. Stakeholders see the benefit from the increased training, professionalism and regulatory oversight that the legislation provides for those who undertake muirburn. I therefore recommend that members oppose amendment 204 as well as amendment 205. On Ariane Burgess’s amendment 206, the depth of 40cm was agreed to by the Parliament during the passage of the 2024 act.”
“If the Scottish Government is not able to support this reasonable amendment, we will expect to hear why, as well as how the issue will be addressed—perhaps through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, for example. Mairi Gougeon: Before I address the individual amendments in the group, I want to address the muirburn licensing scheme that the Parliament agreed to as part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. I fully understand the concern among practitioners about muirburn, especially in the context of this year’s wildfires, which is why the Scottish Government announced a delay to the licensing scheme until the start of the next season in autumn 2026.”
“That means that a greater range of peatlands will be protected in England than in Scotland. With the minister having delayed the introduction of Scotland’s licensing scheme for another year just weeks ago, there is now sufficient time to amend the legislation and guidance ahead of the autumn 2026 muirburn season. My amendment 206 would bring the Scottish muirburn licensing scheme in line with that of England and increase the extent of peatland in Scotland that is protected from muirburn without a licence. Mercedes Villalba: Scottish Labour supports amendment 206, which would update the definition of “peatland” in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. We have repeatedly raised the issue throughout the parliamentary session, and we see no reason why that cannot be done today.”
“It set a definition of peatland for the purposes of requiring a licence to practise muirburn. The definition was one of the most contested parts of the bill, but the Parliament agreed to amend the definition of “peatland” from land with a peat soil layer of at least 50cm down to one with a layer of at least 40cm. Many environmental stakeholders felt that the definition should be even lower, at 30cm. We heard compelling evidence from scientists with the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s peatland programme about the fragility of shallow peat soils. Indeed, Scottish Greens would prefer to see the practice of muirburn banned entirely, with all peat soils protected from the effects of burning. 19:30 Just a few weeks ago, Natural England, in setting its own muirburn licensing scheme, set a lower definition of 30cm.”
“I am concerned that it will alter the definition of peatland in the 2024 act to cover that which is 30cm thick and above. The current definition is 40cm thick and above. That would potentially bring more land under the specific scrutiny and restrictions on muirburn licensing relating to peatland. At this time, when Scotland faces such a risk from wildfire, I believe that it would be irresponsible to widen the definition and potentially restrict necessary preventative muirburn on a wider scale than is already envisioned, so I will not support that amendment. I move amendment 204. Ariane Burgess: Amendment 206 seeks to make a technical change to muirburn provisions in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which was passed by Parliament last year.”
“Although it would be preferable for the scheme to be repealed in its entirety, my amendment 205 seeks to find common ground between those seeking to keep some sort of licence in place and those concerned that the licence could result in wildfires increasing. The amendment seeks to remove one of the conditions on muirburn licensing. Currently, the 2024 act sets out the specific conditions in which a muirburn licence may be granted. If the land to which the application relates is peatland, the act requires it to be proven that “the making of muirburn is necessary for the specified purpose” and that “no other method of vegetation control is practicable.” Amendment 205 deletes the specific requirements for peatland, as it has proved unworkable in practice. I will briefly touch on Ariane Burgess’s amendment 206.”
“Combustible fuel loads will increase and we could lose people in the industry who played such a vital role in containing the recent fires. Please believe me when I say that we have decades, if not hundreds of years, of experience in the intricacies of moorlands in Scotland among the people living in our rural communities. We risk losing generations of knowledge that has been passed down. For those reasons, my amendment 204 would repeal the muirburn licensing scheme, removing it from the 2024 act. That would ensure that effective wildfire prevention is not curtailed by overbearing licensing conditions.”
“However, in 2024, the Scottish Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which will prevent anyone from making muirburn on land without first obtaining a licence. After two delays due to stakeholder concern, the licensing scheme is due to come into force at some point next year. The effect might be that fewer people are able to make muirburn, or that people will stop making it altogether, curtailing the obviously necessary work to prevent the devastating events that took place at Carrbridge and Dava in the Cairngorms this year from taking place again. In my opinion, licensing will only make it harder for skilled and deeply experienced land managers to carry out preventative muirburn.”
“Group 16 is on muirburn. Amendment 204, in the name of Tim Eagle, is grouped with amendments 205 and 206. Tim Eagle: The risk of wildfire in Scotland is rising. Over the past decade, at least 1,500 wildfires have been recorded. Last month, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service issued an extreme risk of wildfire warning—the first alert of its kind since 2020—reflecting the exceptional conditions across Scotland this year. Muirburn—the controlled burning of vegetation—is important in the process of limiting wildfire by removing combustible materials, primarily heather. It is carried out by people with significant experience—estates, gamekeepers and land managers.”
“Section 4—Lotting of large land holding The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 15:57 Meeting suspended. 16:04 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will now proceed with the division on amendment 175. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have before them the bill as amended at stage 2— SP bill 44A—the second marshalled list and the second groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds; thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons, or enter “RTS” in the chat function if they are joining us remotely, as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.”
“As the member will be aware, to come to the specific answers that he has asked for would involve drilling into a huge amount of information. I am more than happy to share that in writing. I go back to the point that I have made from the start: the scheme was massively oversubscribed, which demonstrates the willingness of our farmers and crofters to be involved in the journey to reduce our emissions and create biodiversity. We will continue that.”
“We were told that islanders, new entrants, young farmers and tenant farmers would be prioritised in the application of the funding. However, Orkney, which is one of the country’s most agriculture- dependent areas, accounts for just 3.7 per cent of successful applications and 3.5 per cent of the total budget. Shetland and the Western Isles have fared even worse. As Douglas Ross said, there has been no explanation for those decisions, which has left farmers in my community astonished, confused and genuinely angry. I get that demand for the scheme was high, but given the Government’s stated priorities, will the minister explain why it appears that islanders have fared so badly under the scheme? Jim Fairlie: We will drill down into all the details of what the applications were.”
“I, too, lodged—or tried to lodge—amendments to address some of the wider issues that I alluded to in my contribution, but I was told that they were outside the scope of the bill. Does he agree with me that putting enough safeguards into the bill is not possible not only because some are outside its scope but because we do not know how much they could cost, which in effect means that a blank cheque is required? Bob Doris: I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy that that is a debate for stages 2 and 3. I do not think that I will stand in the way of the financial resolution, but I will not be in a position to support it. 16:52”
“In this Parliament, we allocate budgets to all sorts of bodies, including the national health service and health and social care partnerships through local authorities and the NHS. Those bodies have to use the resources that they have to meet all the outcomes that we ask of them. They sometimes tell us that they are stretched and that they are under pressure, which is often challenging. Resources are always limited, irrespective of our aspirations in this place. That is a reasonable point to make. If there is time, I will take Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention, but I have no idea whether there is time. The Presiding Officer: You may take Ms Duncan-Glancy’s intervention, then please conclude, Mr Doris. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I acknowledge the point that my colleague Bob Doris is making.”
“Part of the debate around those amendments will be on whether they are affordable within the context of the budget. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will respond to the point that Mr Doris directed to the Government on keeping a running total of that. This is not a blank cheque. It will be for members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee to consider the arguments that are made in support of various amendments and whether they are realistic, affordable and provide sufficient safeguards. Ultimately, Parliament will vote on the bill at stage 3, whether or not it meets the required standards that Mr Doris sets out. Bob Doris: I thank Mr McArthur for that point, but I would put a caveat on that.”
“Many members want to make sure that, if the bill goes on to the statute book, it is costed and workable—not workable as a policy intent in itself but workable with all the safeguards that many of us would like to see, even if we may not vote for the legislation itself. Liam McArthur: Will the member give way? Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the member give way? Bob Doris: I think that Mr McArthur was first— sorry, Ms Duncan-Glancy. Liam McArthur: I thank Mr Doris for taking the intervention, and I commend him for how he sets out his argument. The issue clearly draws strong emotions on both sides, but we are being asked to do a procedural act that will allow the amendments—some lodged by Mr Doris and some by Pam Duncan-Glancy—that have budgetary implications to be considered and voted on.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Bob Doris: Can I make this point first? I will then take Mr McArthur’s intervention, if the Presiding Officer permits me to do so. I am seeking quite substantial stage 2 amendments in relation to the role of social work, which may have quite a significant cost. My amendments in relation to palliative care were ruled inadmissible because the bill was deemed to be too narrow. However, there is a policy intent there, and a substantial additional cost. My question to the Government, which was my reason for making this point, is: will the Scottish Government keep under review the costs associated with the bill under the financial resolution?”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19454, in the name of Gillian Martin, on a legislative consent motion on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. 16:22”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-18730, on a financial resolution for the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. I invite Gillian Martin to move the motion. Motion moved, That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Gillian Martin] The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Planning and Infrastructure Bill”
“I advise members that we have a bit of time in hand and that time taken by any interventions will be given back. I call Emma Harper to speak for a generous six minutes. 15:23”
“The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19202, in the name of Craig Hoy, on regretting bank closures. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Motion debated, That the Parliament regrets the latest round of bank closure announcements from Bank of Scotland and other operators across Scotland and the UK; further regrets what it sees as the failure to properly consult with customers and local businesses before closure decisions are taken; notes the calls for all high street bank operators to consider adopting a “branch promise” to halt future closures and to prevent banking deserts developing; expresses concern regarding what it sees as the fragile future of rural banking, including in the South Scotland region, and notes the calls for Link and Cash Access UK to do all they can to fully maintain access to cash and banking services when high street banks close branches.”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. Given our busy programme this afternoon and into the evening, I make the usual, but more impassioned, plea for brevity in questions and in answers. Transmission-related Job Opportunities 1.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Similarly, I could not connect to the app, but I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr McArthur. Your vote will be recorded.”
“He is seeking to find what is required under community engagement, which is an issue that the committee brought up and that the Government has failed to address at stage 2 or stage 3. I respect Mr Matheson’s position on the matter, and I am sure that he drafted his amendment without the help of the Government, which is probably thankful for his intervention. I am concerned, however, that the amendment will allow yet more legislation to be implemented by regulation, which I find difficult, as the best part of legislation should be in the bill.”
“Through the chair, please. Edward Mountain: I said that the draft law that is being considered at the moment is, at best, fiddling round the edges. I remind the Parliament that Mr Ewing said in 2016 that he would bring forward a crofting bill, which would be perfect and would replace the existing crofting acts. The trouble is that that bill failed and disappeared. The Government failed to grasp the nettle then; it has also failed to grasp the nettle effectively with smallholdings, so that they may be properly considered. To my mind, all that the Government has done is park smallholdings on the back burner—which is a failure of the Government and of the minister. Michael Matheson, in lodging amendment 269, is getting the Government out of a pickle, I believe—which shows the inadequacies of the bill.”
“Next week, they are coming to Bute house to describe to me their experience over the summer, when they travelled to Malawi to undertake the exact work that Mr McArthur has referred to. Yes, the Government plays a part, but the Scotland-Malawi partnerships help to encourage the partnership that Mr McArthur has talked about, which is rooted in the deep relationships between our countries that go back more than 150 years. We should work very hard to nurture those relationships.”
“Does he recognise the work of the Scotland Malawi Partnership and the Malawi Scotland Partnership in supporting, connecting and reinforcing the relationships that provide so much good, not only to the people in the warm heart of Africa but to citizens here in Scotland? The First Minister: I could not agree with Mr McArthur more. I have had the privilege of interacting with the Scotland Malawi Partnership and the Malawi Scotland Partnership, which are two excellent organisations that foster and nurture the community-to-community relationships that Mr McArthur has highlighted. I recently attended an event in Dunblane with a Boys Brigade company that regularly interacts with a school in Malawi. This year, the young men from that organisation raised more than £100,000 to support developments in Malawi.”
“I declare an interest as a co-convener of the cross- party group on Malawi. I warmly welcome the visits to Zambia and, in particular, to Malawi. Some will be surprised that that is the first time that a First Minister has been to Malawi since 2005, when Jack McConnell visited. Although I welcome the funding from the Scottish Government, does the First Minister agree that the strength of the relationship is built on the people-to-people civil society links between communities, from Dumfries and Galloway all the way up to the northern isles, which are not necessarily funded by the Scottish Government?”
“To those employees, I say that we are engaging extensively with the company and with the UK Government and trade unions, we are monitoring the situation very closely and we are very hopeful that there will not be an impact on jobs in the north-east. I think that the focus on this matter indicates a wider sense of unease about job losses in the north-east, all of which have happened under companies that have cited the energy profits levy as the primary reason for the decisions that they are making. That is why we have called on the UK Government to consider replacing the EPL as a matter of urgency, while at the same time engaging very closely with companies such as Petrofac to avoid any impact on north-east jobs. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical question time. International Development”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise for arriving late for topical question time. The concerns in the Petrofac workforce are not confined to the north-east; those in the northern isles with connections to the company share those concerns. Amid the flurry of accusations about who is to blame, I detected from the Deputy First Minister’s first response that she agrees with United Kingdom ministers that the matter is a growing concern. Is it not in the interests of all those who are connected with Petrofac that that message is reinforced clearly in the chamber? Kate Forbes: For me, the priority is the employees, who will be concerned, and their families and the wider community.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18364, in the name of Clare Haughey, on opposition to the proposed closure of Cambuslang jobcentre. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. Motion debated, That the Parliament condemns the proposed closure of jobcentres across the UK, including Cambuslang Jobcentre in the Rutherglen constituency, by the UK Government. 17:36”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 11 March 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clauses 18 to 24, 46 and 112, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament. The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Cambuslang Jobcentre (Proposed Closure)”