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 17 of 24.
“I thank the minister for early sight of the statement. The statement makes it clear that, although progress is being made, at a point where we need to accelerate, the opposite is happening and progress is slowing down. Scotland’s progress on installing heat pumps is lagging behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom and, on transport, although peak rail fares have been ditched, so too has the commitment to replace diesel trains by 2035. What advice will the minister give to help whoever it is that he committed will write to Maurice Golden step up and accelerate the progress that we need to make if we are to achieve our targets? Alasdair Allan: I do not think that there is any tradition in the Scottish Government of leaving notes on desks or anything like that.”
“Jim Fairlie: The regulations that Liam McArthur has talked about are outwith the powers of the Scottish Government, but, if he wants to give me the details, I am more than happy to look at the issue to see whether there is anything else that we can advise.”
“Reflecting the concerns that Finlay Carson raised, I advise the minister that Orkney Disability Forum is partnering with the local council to pilot a new service in South Ronaldsay, where no public transport currently exists. A small electric vehicle that can hold fewer than nine passengers has been bought, which can operate on a section 19 permit but not as a scheduled service on a section 22 permit. As a result, it is ineligible for the network support grant and passengers cannot use concessionary cards. Will the minister take action to ensure that regulations do not prevent important initiatives that are tailored to meet the specific transport needs of rural and island communities from accessing the funding that they need?”
“Although reference to alleged abuse at Fornethy house will be permitted to give context to the motion, in the debate, members should focus on the issues that are covered in the motion—the recommendations of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and access to the Redress Scotland scheme—and avoid discussing details of lived experience of abuse or alleged abusers and the upcoming trial. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call on Colin Smyth to open the debate. 12:50”
“The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-15136, in the name of Colin Smyth, on justice for the Fornethy survivors. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Before we start, I would like to make sure that all members who will participate in it are aware that there is an active case relating to the alleged abuse of children within Fornethy house, in which criminal proceedings in the High Court of Justiciary are imminent. For that reason, the sub judice rule is engaged.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17862, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on planning. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button. 15:59”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes with concern the reported ongoing delay to progress towards a new grade separated junction on the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass at Sheriffhall; understands that a public local inquiry was carried out in early 2023, with results reviewed by an independent reporter and delivered to the Scottish Government in early 2024; further understands that the report has been under active consideration by the Scottish Ministers for over a year; believes that motorists using the Edinburgh City Bypass have been subjected to hours of unnecessary congestion due to delays in delivering the A720 Sheriffhall roundabout, since funding was committed in 2018 as part of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal; notes the calls for the Scottish Ministers to prioritise what it sees as this crucial infrastructure project, which, it understands, motorists in the south east of Scotland have been waiting seven years for; understands that the upgrade was originally priced at £120 million; notes the calls on ministers to urgently update the Parliament on the full details of any additional costs for the development of the junction due to the length of time that it has taken to progress it, and further notes the view that it is strategically important to make the improvements on the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass at Sheriffhall, to help deliver improvements to infrastructure that will support local and national economic growth.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17754, in the name of Miles Briggs, on the A720 Sheriffhall roundabout. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Miles Briggs to open the debate.”
“Katy Clark: I press amendment 74. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is now closed. Brian Whittle: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Whittle. I will ensure that that is recorded. Alex Rowley: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Rowley. I will ensure that that vote is recorded.”
“My intention in my intervention was not to question the need for greater transparency in the market—they both articulated very well why that is needed—but to make sure that the provision is as surgical as possible so that we do not have the unintended consequence of perhaps dissuading additional providers from entering the marketplace. Maree Todd: As I said, we are keen to ensure that the requirement to provide information is proportionate and minimal so that it does not place a burden on people who operate in the sector. We are keen to have a healthy market in Scotland— particularly in the Highlands, which is an area that is very close to my heart—and to ensure that we do not dissuade people from coming into the sector. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite Katy Clark to wind up and press or seek to withdraw her amendment 74.”
“However, I see the benefit of having in the public domain information about the state of the market, and I believe that the requirement to provide information that is relevant to the production of such reports is entirely proportionate and, indeed, minimal. Reporting will be done only every three years and we will, of course, work with the sector on implementation. I encourage all members to support all the amendments in the group. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am grateful for the clarifications that both Katy Clark and the minister have offered.”
“Amendment 74 and the supporting amendment 85, which would require ministers to report on the social care market in Scotland, would be an important step in enabling increased financial transparency in the market, which is something that I know that stakeholders have been calling for. It would, for the first time, give a clear national picture of the social care market in Scotland. In order for ministers to be able to produce reports on the shape of the market, they will need to have the necessary market information, and amendment 75 would give us the powers needed to obtain that information. I appreciate that service providers may be concerned about the potential burden of data collection, which is an issue that Mr Cole-Hamilton raised.”
“Greater analysis of the rent that is extracted from care is really important in driving public policy, because the model is clearly unsustainable. Katy Clark: As Paul Sweeney knows, it is our money that is being spent on paying for those services, and the Parliament must take an interest in that. The purpose of my amendments in the group and of the discussions that I have had with the minister is to ensure that accurate information is regularly provided to the Parliament so that we can understand what is happening in the sector, debate the issues and make public policy decisions on that basis. I hope that Parliament will feel able to support the amendments today. I move amendment 74. Maree Todd: I welcome, and will support, Katy Clark’s amendments.”
“Southern Cross is a good example of the distress that is caused when a care home goes bust or ceases to operate, and the difficulties that that causes those who rely on that service and their families. The amendments in this group are geared towards transparency, scrutiny and bringing to the fore some of the issues that Alex Cole Hamilton has brought to the chamber today. We know that there is a range of providers within the sector, from small family-owned businesses and third sector organisations to the multinationals and offshore trusts that I have spoken about. Paul Sweeney: My friend is making a powerful point. Statistics that I have seen say that 77 per cent of the care sector in Scotland is privately owned and that, according to the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the average profit extraction per bed is around £4,000.”
“The Financial Times reported that it consisted of 200 companies arranged in 12 layers across at least five jurisdictions, including several offshore territories, and that tax avoidance and profit shifting were central to its operations in a model that is known as financialisation. There are clearly significant issues in the sector, although Alex Cole-Hamilton may be thinking of a slightly different example. The report that would come to the Parliament would be about improving transparency and scrutiny and would look at issues such as who owns the sector, how it is being operated and whether it is being operated in the public interest. We know that any failure in the sector affects our constituents.”
“One example that members might be aware of or might have been involved in as constituency representatives was the 2011 collapse of Southern Cross Healthcare, which was owned by the Blackstone Group. The consequences of that collapse affected 31,000 care home residents across the UK. Many of those care homes were in Scotland, including in the constituency that I represented at the time. Many Southern Cross care homes were sold to Four Seasons Health Care, which was owned by the Jersey-based equity firm Terra Firma. In April 2017, 220 care homes and 17,000 residents were affected when that organisation also became bankrupt. Four Seasons, like many private equity operations, had a complex corporate structure.”
“Particularly in the Highlands, care homes are closing hand over fist, and we need to attract new providers into the sector. What analysis has she done on the impact on their interest in Scotland? Katy Clark: The focus has been to consider issues that are associated with the changing nature of ownership in the sector. I will speak a little about that and perhaps come back to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s point. Earlier in the debate, I spoke about issues that relate to offshore ownership in the sector, which is, increasingly, a problem. I will say a little bit about one particular situation. According to work that was done in 2016, across the UK in general, five large chains accounted for almost 20 per cent of beds. I suspect that the figures would now show more of a concentration of ownership.”
“Under amendment 75, Scottish ministers will be able to “require a person to supply them with information that ... is in the person’s control, and ... may be relevant to the Scottish Ministers’ function of reporting” on social care markets. Amendment 85 will subject regulations to the affirmative procedure. All the amendments are about transparency, information and accountability to the taxpayer. Alex Cole-Hamilton: The Lib Dems are interested in the amendments, and it is clear that Katy Clark has worked with the Government to make them competent. What analysis have she and Government officials undertaken on the impact that the provisions might have if they prove to be too onerous? Might they act as a disincentive to private providers entering the care sector in Scotland?”
“The report could also include information on “the level of profit being made by operators in the market” or the tax status of operators. There are significant amounts of money in the Scottish care home sector. However, the sector also faces significant challenges with the quality of care, staffing resources and worker pay, which the Scottish Trades Union Congress indicates now lags behind that in the rest of the UK. There has been a change in the nature of the sector, and on-going funding pressures are leading to the closure of a growing number of care homes, particularly in rural areas, with almost half of all care homes nationwide reporting a decrease in the number of placements. As I said, there are significant amounts of money in the sector.”
“Amendment 74, in the name of Katy Clark, is grouped with amendments 75 and 85. Katy Clark: I thank the minister for her time in discussions since stage 2 so that the drafting of amendments could be agreed on to improve transparency on tax and ownership. I am very grateful to her officials for their work on the drafting of the amendments. Amendment 74 will require Scottish ministers to make publicly available a report on the state of the social care market in Scotland every three years. The report could contain information about “the composition of the market by reference to such factors such as the scale of the economic operators in the market and their status as for-profit bodies, public bodies or third sector bodies”.”
“Amendment 46 will build on our evidence-led approach, requiring ministers to periodically evaluate how needs might change in the coming years and to continue to develop our approaches to further increase understanding, particularly around the kind of needs that are unmet and why that might be the case. As I have said in the discussions about other groups this afternoon, I am pleased to support data and evidence gathering with a purpose. I encourage all members to support amendments 46 and 51. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 46. Jackie Baillie: I have nothing to add, Presiding Officer, other than that I press amendment 46. Amendment 46 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 13 is on social care market monitoring.”
“Amendment 46 would give us the opportunity to be data driven in our pursuit of social care reform, with Scottish ministers producing a report before the end of 2026 and every five years thereafter on projected social care needs over a 10-year horizon. We would then be better able to plan for the future and deliver the change that we all want to see. Amendment 51 is consequential to amendment 46. I commend both amendments to members. I move amendment 46. 17:15 Maree Todd: I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendments. I am committed to increasing the understanding of social care needs to inform and support health and social care reform. Last week, the Scottish Government published an analysis of self-reported unmet care and support needs in older adults aged over 65.”
“It sounds as though there is consensus in supporting the sector to flourish and grow, as was envisioned by Derek Feeley in his review. I thank members for that. Amendment 44 agreed to. Amendments 71 and 70 moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to. Amendments 72 and 73 moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to. After section 13 Amendment 45 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 12 is on projection of care needs. Amendment 46, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendment 51. Jackie Baillie: This is another short group. To transform social care, it is important that we have a better understanding of projected needs. If we do so, we will be able to assess the progress that is being made for the people of Scotland.”
“It is for that reason, in particular, that Labour will support all the amendments in this group. Together, they would put independent advocacy at the heart of social care while creating a duty on ministers and the Government to build up and support the independent advocacy sector in this country. That is a major step forward in legislation. Although there is still a lot of work to be done to increase provision for independent advocacy support across Scotland, the proposals are nonetheless a step forward in legislation. I hope that the Parliament will join Labour in supporting the amendments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite the minister to wind up. Maree Todd: As members have said, independent advocacy is absolutely vital in helping people to have their voice heard and to realise their rights.”
“I hope that the support for the amendments from across the chamber shows how highly independent advocacy is valued by members across the Parliament, as well as showing our commitment to building up a stronger independent advocacy sector in this country. For many of our constituents, the many different Government bodies, private providers and third sector organisations that they encounter and have to navigate when trying to access care can make for a confusing and distressing experience, and that is probably the last thing that they need. The work of independent advocates means that those constituents know that they do not have to navigate those complex systems alone. Instead, they can get expert advice and assistance that is always on their side in getting the best outcome for the person concerned.”
“I take on board the minister’s comments that the sector does not want to be overwhelmed, but I think that the incremental approach will work well, and the amendments in this group would help to provide the right direction for that. Paul Sweeney: I extend my thanks to the minister, to Mr Whittle, a member for South Scotland, and to Mr Ruskell, a Mid Scotland and Fife regional member, who have all submitted excellent amendments to support the provision of independent advocacy. It is heartening to see such cross-party support for independent advocacy. I hope that that support will continue long after the bill has passed and become an act of Parliament, to ensure that it is given good effect in the country.”
“The Scottish ministers will be required to publish and lay before Parliament a report outlining an assessment of where the provision of independent advocacy has increased during the review period. If that has not happened, the report should set out what steps the Government intends to take to ensure that the availability of independent advocacy services increases before the next review period ends. The amendment would provide greater transparency of what is being done to ensure that independent advocacy is available to those who really need it in order to be empowered. It would ensure that Scottish ministers deliver on the approach that is supported by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance—that of incrementally increasing funding year on year for independent advocacy.”
“Amendments 72 and 73 are designed to provide a clearer definition of independent advocacy services in order to avoid ambiguity in how the legislation is applied. The definition is important in ensuring that advocacy is genuinely independent, which is critical to people being properly supported to have their voices heard. I hope that the amendments will improve awareness and understanding of that support to help people to realise their human rights. Amendment 78 would require the Scottish ministers to review and report on the provision of independent advocacy that is funded by them— first within two years of the provision coming into force and then every four years after that.”
“Over time, if ministers use that data effectively, there is also the potential to decrease pressure on the sector, as fewer people will engage an independent advocacy service to navigate the social care system when no additional support is required. I am glad that the minister has indicated her support for amendment 70. Amendments 72 and 73, in the name of Mark Ruskell, would strengthen the definition of independence beyond the stage 2 wording, and I urge members to support them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Mark Ruskell to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the group. Mark Ruskell: I thank the minister and officials for their constructive engagement on this important issue, which came up at stage 2. There is consensus on the group, and we are happy to support Mr Whittle’s amendments and the Government’s amendments.”
“Before lodging amendment 70, I consulted the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, which I understand is concerned about the amendment’s interaction with Mark Ruskell’s amendment 78. I await his speech on that amendment, although I note that the Scottish Government plans to vote for it. Amendment 70 seeks to understand the reasons why people are engaging with independent advocacy. Does that arise from a need for additional support or simply a need to navigate the system? If the amendment is agreed to, anonymised data will be collected to inform ministers about how the social care system is working, so that they have the evidence base to make improvements.”
“I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 71 and other amendments in the group. Brian Whittle: The bill has shone an unexpected light on independent advocacy. I am glad that I was able to work with the minister and her officials to get agreement to amendment 71. The amendment requires advocacy services standards to be introduced in secondary legislation, to ensure a consistent level of quality for all independent advocacy providers in relation to public social care services across Scotland. It will also help to ensure the delivery of high-quality independent advocacy provision, as anyone who provides independent advocacy to support someone receiving public social care services must comply with those standards.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr McArthur. Your vote will be recorded.”
“I have therefore been clear in my support of the proposed right to breaks for unpaid carers. I have also previously highlighted a desire for a clear definition of “sufficient breaks”. I am supportive of the minister’s intention to consult on the content of regulations to further define the meaning of “sufficient breaks”, so that carers—and those who support them—have the opportunity for input. We all agree that carers need time to recharge and relax—time to help them look after themselves. I lodged amendment 16 to ensure that, whatever form that definition takes, it recognises the need for unpaid carers “to have time for rest and leisure”. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group.”
“It risks creating confusion and puts unnecessary burdens on bodies that are already subject to statutory duties to provide such information. Therefore, I ask him not to move amendment 63. My door is always open to him, as it is to all members across the chamber, to explore how we can improve financial transparency within an already comprehensive statutory system. I move amendment 10. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 16 and other amendments in the group. Jackie Baillie: I, too, thank the minister for responding to a number of the amendments at stage 2 of the bill. Scottish Labour supports the Government’s amendments in this group. I turn to amendment 16. It is essential that carers are supported to have a life alongside caring and to protect their wellbeing.”
“I recognise the importance of transparency in relation to spending on local carer support, but the issue has already been recognised in a previous parliamentary session. The existing powers in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 are sufficient to specify financial reporting by integration joint boards. The 2014 act also requires publication of annual performance reports, and subordinate legislation made by Scottish ministers already requires those reports to include information on the amount spent on carer support. If Mr Whittle feels that all the information that he wants is not already provided through that mechanism, I would be pleased to discuss with him the changes that should be made to ensure that the information is provided. However, amendment 63 is the wrong way to go about getting it.”
“As I said at stage 2, the definition of sufficient breaks will be developed in partnership with carers, to ensure that their lived experience is properly reflected. Amendment 16 affirms the commitment to that in legislation, and I encourage members across the chamber to support it. I also support amendment 1 and I thank Mr Balfour for lodging it. Amendment 1 will enshrine in legislation a duty to assist carers in accessing support, including income maximisation. We already have in place a range of supports for carers, including statutory duties on local authorities, Social Security Scotland signposting to support, and funding for local carer centres. However, I share Mr Balfour’s desire to keep improving how we support carers now and in years to come. However, I cannot support Brian Whittle’s amendment 63.”
“At stage 2, I noted that some adjustments to the new section were needed to clarify the duties, and I discussed those with Gillian Mackay and carers representative organisations to ensure that the intention behind the original amendment is met in a way that gives clarity to local authorities, which publish those statements. Amendments 24 to 29 make those adjustments. I turn to other members’ amendments in the group. I am pleased to support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 16, which will underline that regulations that set out what constitutes sufficient breaks for carers should recognise the importance of their having “time for rest and leisure”. I recognise the pressures that many carers are under and the importance of ensuring that they can access breaks to maintain and improve their wellbeing.”
“Amendment 10 updates a cross-reference and amendments 11 to 15 and 17 shorten the way in which breaks are referred to, as the meaning of “break” will be defined by amendment 18, which simply tidies up the definition of that expression, as agreed at stage 2. Amendments 20 to 23 deal with the consequential repeal of provisions in the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 that are no longer needed. I was pleased at stage 2 to support Gillian Mackay’s amendment to add section 39A to the bill, which is entitled “Short break services statement”. It is important that people who care for others know how to access short breaks.”
“Amendment 54 disagreed to. Section 37A—Power to produce standards Amendment 4 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to. Section 37B—Persons to whom standards may apply Amendments 5 to 8 moved—[Maree Todd]— and agreed to. Section 37E—Interpretation of Chapter 1 Amendment 9 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to. Section 38—Rights to breaks for carers The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 3 is on carers. Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 11 to 29, 1 and 63. Maree Todd: I will briefly speak first to my own amendments in the group, which are all of a minor and technical nature to tidy up after stage 2.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 33, Against 83, Abstentions 0.”
“I call Katy Clark to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 54. Katy Clark: I press amendment 54. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the extraordinary global contribution of Thomas Blake Glover, a pioneering Scottish merchant and industrialist, who was born on 6 June 1838 in Fraserburgh, at what is now known as Glover Garden on Commerce Street, and who was the son of the town’s harbour master; acknowledges Thomas Blake Glover’s key role in 19th century Japan, where he supported the Choshu Five, a group of young scholars whose work helped shape modern Japanese governance, industry and education, including the introduction of sign language; notes his pivotal contribution to the establishment of the Mitsubishi Corporation and his influence in the development of Japan’s shipbuilding and industrial sectors; celebrates the enduring cultural and economic links between Scotland and Japan that it believes Thomas Blake Glover helped to foster, including the internationally renowned Glover Garden in Nagasaki; recognises the contemporary relevance of his legacy in Fraserburgh, where offshore wind turbines, visible from the coast and maintained at the harbour where Thomas Blake Glover’s father served, include parts manufactured by Mitsubishi; acknowledges what it sees as this powerful link between Fraserburgh’s maritime heritage and its current role in the global energy transition; welcomes the development of Fraserburgh’s own Glover Garden as a symbol of education, pride and international friendship, and wishes every success to the organisers and attendees of the inaugural Thomas Blake Glover Festival, taking place on 8 June 2025, in the hope that it will become a lasting annual celebration of Fraserburgh’s unique contribution to global history.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17428, in the name of Karen Adam, on Thomas Blake Glover—Fraserburgh’s international legacy. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Members who wish to participate should press their request-to-speak buttons.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament congratulates the community of Summerston, in the Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency, on reaching the significant milestone of having been established for 50 years; understands that the first residents settled in the area from late 1974; believes that, in the years that followed, they witnessed a strong, close knit and civically-minded community develop; recognises the contribution of all those who have been involved in building Summerston’s community spirit over the decades, none more so than Billy Souter who sadly passed away this year; commends the Summerston Community and Environmental Group (SCEG) on its efforts to both improve the area’s environment and celebrate the five decades of Summerston as a community; acknowledges the work of SCEG in, it believes, it being “hands on” in its efforts to enhance the local area; notes that a community action plan was developed by SCEG following a major community consultation to help further improve the area; believes that a successful, piper-led, winter lantern parade, supported by Summerston schoolchildren and the wider community took place on the 27 November 2024 to mark the 50th anniversary, which kickstarted a number of events planned over the next 12 months; considers that constructive community activism and participation is a key component in helping communities such as Summerston prosper; supports the coming year’s activities, and wishes the people of Summerston every success on the area continuing to thrive for the next 50 years and beyond.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-16094, in the name of Bob Doris, on celebrating 50 years of Summerston. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.”
“It could be argued that a lack of constraints through regulation in the UK has allowed UK businesses to rest on their laurels, rather than undertaking the innovation, investment and modernisation that they need to undertake to compete. 16:35”
“Someone who works in the construction sector told me that investment in his business has been stalled by the lack of regulation on heat in buildings and by the lack of commitment from the Scottish Government on targets and the number of heat pumps to be installed. Setting a clear direction for investment in regulation allows companies to put the money into training and equipment. The Financial Times also has something to say about EU regulation. It makes a comparison with companies in the EU, which are subject to much higher levels of regulation than those in the UK, noting that EU regulations, while often seen as burdensome, have also driven innovation by compelling businesses to adapt and modernise.”
“The key to growth is to create an environment where there are great commercial opportunities—tax rate differences of a few percentage points are largely unimportant if you are making a lot of money. A better policy response would be to use any remaining fiscal space to invest in a serious productivity agenda. This would include mechanisms for increasing investment in infrastructure, skills, research and innovation, alongside incentives to firms to adopt” new technology or improve management practices. That brings me on to my second point, which is to challenge Willie Rennie on what he said about regulation. Regulation can support businesses.”
“Ms Slater, I ask you to resume your seat. The member has taken two interventions. She has been generous with interventions. I think that we should listen to the responses and the speech that she is making. Ms Slater, please continue. Lorna Slater: It is not just me who thinks, “Tax, tax, tax. Everybody is only worried about tax.” I will quote the Financial Times. When the World Bank did surveys with investors on what determined their willingness to invest in a country, “The top reasons were almost always the same: first came macroeconomic and political stability (which has been put into jeopardy in the UK)” because of Brexit, followed by “high-quality infrastructure and skills. Low taxes and enterprise zones were always near the bottom.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17785, in the name of Kate Forbes, on empowering entrepreneurs and innovators. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to- speak buttons now or as soon as possible. 15:22”