Graham Simpson
Reform UK · Scotland
“We have a deluge of speculative applications for AI data centres across the country. We have heard already that the area that I represent, North Lanarkshire, is designated an AI growth zone.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Murdo Fraser: Perhaps Mr Simpson has an explanation for that. Graham Simpson: I have personally congratulated Douglas Lumsden for winning that by-election. However, the only reason for the by-election was that I managed to get double jobbing banned.”
“If anything additional is needed—such as regulatory changes—as a result of this emerging technology, we need to be alive to that as well. I have been in post for three weeks in this area, but I want to ensure that this is taken forward. There is a great deal of interest in the issue across rural portfolios.”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises the importance of affordable bus services connecting people to employment, education and essential services; welcomes the success of the free bus schemes available to 2.4 million people, including all those aged under 22, over 60 and disabled people; believes that more can be done to make it easier a…”
“I want fare capping to succeed, as it has down south and as have similar schemes when tried elsewhere in Europe and indeed in these isles. The evidence is there already. In London, bus and tram travel is capped at £5.25 a day and £24.70 a week.”
“At the end, if franchising gets that far, there is the added hoop of having to get the whole scheme approved by an independent, unelected panel that is convened by the traffic commissioner for Scotland, who is a United Kingdom Government appointee. After years of effort, the whole thing could fall at that point, which is wrong.”
The complete record
Every one of 357 lines we hold for Graham Simpson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“As we look ahead to what promises to be a truly exciting summer, we recognise that sport has a unique ability to unite people and to inspire the nation, and we are determined to harness that power.”
“I am sure that, like me, the minister has really enjoyed this debate about sport. However, I picked up on only two members who actually admitted to currently taking part in any sport: badminton ace Irshad Ahmed and top footballer Jack Middleton. I may have missed some. Nonetheless, will the minister join me in encouraging all members, in this summer of sport, to take part in at least one over the next few months? Siobhian Brown: I absolutely support that suggestion. The summer of sport connects to children’s rights and services and outdoor play, and to my work supporting looked-after children and young people and those with learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence. This is not just a sports programme; it is a children’s rights programme and a wellbeing programme. Fundamentally, it is about equity, belonging and opportunity.”
“Food inflation is still expected to be exceptionally high. It is important that we recognise that, across Scotland, many people in our communities are struggling with not just the cost of housing but the cost of living across a variety of areas. That is why it is important that, in looking to help with our first homes fund, we recognise that it will help with the pressures of the cost of living for many families and individuals across Scotland. It will help them to bear the burden of other costs that we do not have the powers to impact, such as energy—we will come back to that tomorrow. We also hope to help people with the cost of their food bills.”
“We all want the scheme to work, so it is important that we try to learn lessons in the first round. My question to the cabinet secretary— [Interruption.]—if I could stop being heckled, because it is a serious question and Stephen Flynn may want to listen to it, is, how will we guard against people who have money using the scheme and taking advantage of it? Shirley-Anne Somerville: One important way in which we will look at the success of the scheme is in how we help people with the pressure of the cost of living. I am mindful of the fact that someone’s ability to own their own home is very much to do with the affordability of the deposit and the mortgage versus the rent; however, it is also to do with their energy costs, which, again, are just about to increase, as we heard this morning.”
“The party’s national executive committee had a full, open and transparent account of the way in which the party is run under my leadership, and I am glad that we were able to confidently look back on a successful election that had been well funded by our party members around the country.”
“I am the leader of the Scottish National Party, and I assure Mr Simpson—this will be vouched for by my colleagues who are here with me today and by party members around the country—that I lead an open and transparent culture in the SNP. Last Saturday, our party’s national executive committee met, and the members of that executive had in front of them full transparency about the management accounts of my party to 30 April 2026. The accounts highlighted the amount of money that we were raising to fund our election campaign, which was contributed by decent party members around the country. The accounts showed what we were spending our money on to ensure that we could have so many SNP MSPs elected to this Parliament—more than any other party in this chamber.”
“Scrutiny is important in this place and in political parties, but scrutiny of the SNP’s finances was shut down. People were basically told to button it, and Nicola Sturgeon said that there was nothing to see. Does the First Minister now regret that that approach was taken? The First Minister: I do not want to sully the atmosphere tonight, but I do not think that Reform UK is in the strongest position to challenge me about financial transparency, when Nigel Farage is dodging accountability in relation to a £5 million contribution that was made to him personally, for which he has not made proper accountability. I hope that members will forgive me on this occasion for being a little sceptical about people who run into the greenhouse throwing stones around.”
“Although I am of the view that the legislative provision is broad enough to enable a range of behaviours to be dealt with, I will nonetheless practise what I preach, keep an open mind and consider what further action we can take in terms of changes to criminal law. As I mentioned to Patrick Harvie, we are taking forward work on football banning orders. It may well be that, following further consultation, we could consider criminalising pitch invasions as part of that endeavour.”
“I am most grateful, Presiding Officer. Prior to the shocking scenes in Glasgow city centre, there was a rather unseemly pitch invasion at Celtic Park. That was not the first time that it had happened this season. As a football fan, I am sickened to see such things. I was surprised to learn that pitch invasions are illegal in England but not in Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to take action to close that loophole? If she agrees to close the loophole, action should be taken swiftly against those who break any new law. Angela Constance: I appreciate Mr Simpson’s point about pitch invasions and the law. In Scotland, we have breach of the peace and section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.”
“I, Graham Simpson, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.”
“Does Jeremy Balfour agree that attendance is bound to be down on Friday, which makes a mockery of the whole process of what is a very important bill? Does he agree that that would be a bit of an insult to the member in charge, who, as he told us earlier, has spent four and a half years on the bill? Jeremy Balfour: I cannot comment on what the attendance will or will not be. All I know is that there will be people who want to be here but cannot be here, because they either have a caring responsibility or need a carer to help them, and they will be excluded. That does not seem to me to be a democratically open way to go about things.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to make records on the Scotland’s People website more readily available elsewhere. (S6O-05616)”
“The SPFL has confirmed that it is considering very carefully its scheduling of the remaining old firm fixtures, in consultation with Police Scotland. The Scottish Government speaks to both organisations very regularly. We will continue to do that on this issue. As the member said, behaviour such as invading the pitch, engaging in violence, setting off and throwing pyrotechnics and carrying out vandalism is appalling and completely unacceptable. Business Motion 14:27”
“The scenes at the match were absolutely horrific. It was not just the pitch invasion; we saw scenes of fans bursting through a disabled access point, there was vandalism at the ground and innocent people were hurt. Then we had the pitch invasion by masked yobs wearing balaclavas and what appeared to be uniforms. Does the minister plan to speak to both clubs? I ask because I think that there is an issue with the way in which clubs allocate tickets to both home and away fans, and maybe that is what should be addressed. Siobhian Brown: As I said, I spoke to the SFA and the SPFL this morning, when the SFA confirmed that it would be speaking to both clubs to establish the facts of Sunday’s events. I am keen to let that process play out. There is also the judicial panel process, and I do not want to interfere with that.”
“There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Ferguson Marine”
“I am interested in the cost of redeveloping Ardrossan. I heard the cabinet secretary say that there could be different figures, but because she is a diligent cabinet secretary, I know that she will have a budget in mind. Can she tell us what the range of figures is? Fiona Hyslop: The range of figures is covered in the provision in the budget and comprehensive spending review. However, as the member will know, as with any commercial tender, if I were to suggest how much that would be, I might not get the best value for the public purse or secure best value for public investment. I reassure the member that the figures are there, but I also ask him to understand that there will have to be a competitive tender to secure the best value for that development work. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the statement.”
“The point that I have already answered is that it would have been improper for me to make a whimsical or ill-informed reference to a document that I had not seen before entering the chamber, as Lord Advocate, to be asked in an unprecedented way about matters in relation to a live case. It is unprecedented that a law officer be asked to comment in this way on a live case.”
“Can I just check something? I am a little bit unclear from some of those answers. Had the Lord Advocate seen the March 2025 document before it was sent? I seek a simple yes or no. Had she seen it? If so, had she simply forgotten about the document when she appeared in the Parliament last week? The Lord Advocate: I believe that I have answered that question. Of course I saw the March 2025 document when it was sent from my office. However, I did not see it before I entered the chamber to answer questions, and I did not know of it at the point at which I was asked questions.”
“We conclude decision time at that point. Clydebank Blitz (85th Anniversary)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We have just witnessed something that I have not seen in my time in the Parliament, which is a member refusing to leave after being instructed to leave by the Presiding Officer. I have never seen that before, and I think it is pretty disgraceful. It challenges your authority as chair, Presiding Officer, which no member should ever do. It is rather ironic, given that we have been discussing a bill that is all about the behaviour of members. Can you advise how you intend to proceed with this matter? The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Simpson. As always, I will proceed fairly, treating all members impartially. That is the reason why I cannot allow one member to disregard the standing orders of the Parliament, one of which very clearly is to respect the authority of the chair.”
“The Parliament accepted my amendments today and the minister backed all of them, so I hope that that has been enough to secure his support. We will hear about that soon. Today, I have heard concerns about the Agnew review and the parliamentary sanctions element of the bill. Nothing in the bill, as it is now, prevents our waiting for that review to complete. The bill can pass, and we can wait for the Agnew review.”
“However—luckily—I had engaged with the Senedd Standards of Conduct Committee in Wales where the Welsh Government was legislating under the new entirely list system. It seemed to me that I could largely adopt the Welsh system for recalling regional members, which was to ask voters only once whether a member should stay or go, if they had met the threshold for being recalled—a poll, rather than a petition. That system is far easier to understand than my initial two-stage proposal and is, obviously, a lot cheaper. That is what I proposed at stage 2. I had responded to the committee’s concerns. My officials worked with the Government on amendments. However, when we got to stage 2, the minister revealed that he was not entirely happy with one of the amendments. He wanted more detail, so I have provided that.”
“Being jailed for six months is a very unlikely event in Scotland, but I wanted to avoid a repeat of the situation in the past whereby a member was jailed for 12 months but the law said that he would lose his job only if he was incarcerated for “more than” 12 months. That section of the bill was also sacrificed, so we are left with a recall bill. The Parliament accepted that we should legislate. The question was: how? The fundamental challenge for me was to design a recall system that works for both constituency and regional members. It is impossible to have the same system, because we are elected differently. My initial effort was clunky and potentially very expensive. I accepted that and went back to the drawing board, because that is the process: we need to listen. The difficult bit was the regional element.”
“That rather cushy arrangement would not be found in any other workplace, and to assume that people will not swing the lead is ludicrous, because they have done so and they will do so. Having been a councillor, I knew that councillors can lose their positions if they are absent for more than six months without good reason. The committee that looked at the bill was not entirely persuaded of the concept that I proposed—it was never about trying to catch MSPs who are off for a variety of very understandable reasons—so we lost that part of the bill at stage 2. The Parliament must return to that, because it is simply an unacceptable situation. I also proposed that MSPs should lose their jobs if they were jailed for six months or more.”
“The former Minister for Parliamentary Business, Jamie Hepburn, has my on-going respect for the collaborative way in which he engaged with me on the bill, as does the current minister, Graeme Dey. Finally, I thank Baroness Davidson for setting me on this course. I hope that it has not been a waste of time and that the Parliament does the right thing and legislates. When I first started talking to Baroness Davidson about the bill, as I mentioned earlier, our idea centred on whether it was right that MSPs could get elected for five years and then, perfectly legitimately and without having to provide any excuse, never turn up again after being sworn in, or, now, in the age of hybrid working, without even logging into proceedings.”
“It is customary to thank a number of people when we reach this stage in a member’s bill, so I will start with some thanks. First, I thank the non-Government bills unit for its support throughout what has been a very long process. My various staff throughout the years of working on the bill deserve my thanks, and, in particular, I single out Abigail Fletcher, who will be mortified that I have mentioned her. She was super efficient and a great source of advice, and she will do well where she works now and wherever she works in the future. I thank everyone who has engaged with me on the bill or who responded to the committee’s call for evidence, because being challenged on your ideas is a vital part of the process.”
“We should avoid creating a complex and unwieldy process that, quite frankly, might push the electorate away from engaging whole-heartedly in it. I press amendment 38.”
“On the basis that the system that Sue Webber’s amendments would create would not include a role for the electorate in relation to regional MSPs and, therefore, would not seek to treat constituency MSPs and regional MSPs fairly, I will not support her amendments. The Presiding Officer: I call Sue Webber to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 38. Sue Webber: I find it slightly ironic that two regional MSPs are supporting my amendments but the Government minister who was elected in a constituency is not. I push back on the member who introduced the bill, who, in my opinion, did a fair bit of heavy lifting in that section. We have to figure out whether the public will understand the process. If we want to involve the electorate, the process must be simple and understandable.”
“Drawing on the UK model for constituency MSPs and the Welsh model for regional MSPs, my officials worked painstakingly to ensure that the two processes in the bill—the constituency MSP recall process and the regional MSP recall process—will operate in ways that reflect the need for parity of esteem. For example, it is intended that the campaigning time available for an MSP before a signing period closes for the constituency MSP petition process will be comparable with the time available before a vote requires to be cast in the regional MSP recall process. Therefore, the amount of time that the electorate will have to consider their decision will be of comparable length.”
“I also sought to ensure that the recall process that followed any ground for recall being met included features that would enable any MSP, whether they were a regional MSP or a constituency MSP, to have the time and opportunity to make their case to the electorate—a fair opportunity to campaign and, therefore, remain in their post. Given that constituency MSPs and regional MSPs are elected using different systems, they must be replaced using different systems. There is no way to treat members in an identical way, but they can be treated fairly and with parity of esteem as far as possible. In my opinion, part of the process for all MSPs must involve the electorate.”
“Sue Webber’s amendments would apply the recall petition process only to constituency members and provide for automatic removal of regional members in cases in which the parliamentary sanction grounds apply. There are two questions for Parliament to consider in relation to this group of amendments. First, would a resolution of the Parliament to sanction a regional MSP be sufficient grounds to automatically remove them? Secondly, would regional MSPs and constituency MSPs be treated with parity of esteem, as far as possible, if there was no recall process of any kind for a regional MSP? During the bill’s policy development, I considered carefully what the appropriate triggers should be for the recall process.”
“Has the First Minister, anyone in the Government, or anyone connected to the Government ever asked to be kept informed about this case? The Lord Advocate: Not that I know of.”
“Angela O'Hagan of the Scottish Human Rights Commission said at stage 1: “For the bill to propose in part 2 a much more significant carve-out for all subsequent legislation, rather than addressing the problem at the core, is a problem.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 48.] We must ensure that acts of the Scottish Parliament are compliant with UNCRC in the first place, so that we can build a human rights culture in our public authorities, and that culture should respect the rights of children and young people as absolute.”
“What is happening is that, just after we have incorporated the UNCRC into Scots law, the bill will give public bodies that are meant to uphold children’s rights a blanket opt-out, should there be any conflict between the convention and other legislation. That sends out entirely the wrong message.”
“If we end up with legal challenges, the Government might lose, which means that the bill is a bad one and we really ought to be doing better. I will vote against the bill, basically because I do not think that it works. It is neither one thing nor the other. I think that Stephen Kerr is right. I do not see the point of the bill, because it seems to have got so much wrong. I will leave it there. The Presiding Officer: We move to the winding-up speeches. 19:41 Maggie Chapman: As I indicated earlier, my closing remarks will focus on part 2 of the bill. I remain uncomfortable with that part of the bill.”
“I will be brief. I agree with Stephen Kerr that the bill is a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I approach the bill from the point of view of asking whether it will work legally, not from a religious point of view, and see two problems. The bill creates a situation where a pupil can opt in to religious observance against their parents’ wishes but cannot opt out. That is a conflict. If we are serious about children’s rights, we must recognise that it is wrong to have that conflict in the bill. We also heard the argument, which is a valid one, that parents have rights, too, but the bill does not address those either. The problem that I see, and the place where I agree with human rights campaigners, is that the bill will lead to legal challenges. I think that that will happen.”
“In developing the guidance, we will engage with schools and other interested parties to determine what further support might be appropriate to ensure that religious observance is consistently and sufficiently inclusive of those of all faiths and no faith.”
“Schools are already required by the school handbook regulations to provide information on the form and content of religious observance and on the arrangements for withdrawing a pupil. The introduction of a duty to provide an assessment of whether those activities are sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic would place a significant administrative burden on schools, which I think is the point that Stephen Kerr made earlier. We already expect schools to provide only activities that they believe to be sufficient in that regard, in line with the existing guidance. The new statutory guidance to accompany the implementation of the bill will highlight the expectation that religious observance is inclusive, as well as how that might look in practice.”
“Amendment 21 will also require that the guidance be published within 12 months of the section being commenced, reflecting the importance of the guidance in providing clarity for schools, parents and pupils regarding the implementation of the changes. For all those reasons, I invite members to support amendment 21. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 22 would require non-denominational schools to provide pupils and parents with details of the “format and content” of religious observance at least 14 days in advance—as we have heard from members today—alongside an assessment of whether religious observance activities are “sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”. Amendment 22A would apply those requirements to all public and grant-aided schools, instead of only non-denominational ones.”
“Amendment 21 will require that ministers consider the importance of inclusiveness in the content and delivery of religious observance when preparing the statutory national guidance. That will support schools in ensuring that all pupils can participate in religious observance without contravening their personal beliefs. Recognising the particular context of religious observance in denominational schools, amendment 21 explicitly includes as mandatory consultees those who represent the interests of denominational schools, alongside education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools, to ensure that the guidance works for both denominational and non- denominational settings.”
“I am very glad that we have worked with Ms Whitham on her amendment, which responds to concerns raised following stage 2 changes that separated religious observance and religious and moral education so that the parental right to withdraw would apply only to religious observance. As members might know, and as we have heard from Mr O’Kane and other members this afternoon, there is a close relationship in denominational schools between religious education and religious observance. By providing a duty for ministers to issue guidance on the meaning of religious observance in schools, amendment 21 will ensure that clarity will be provided for schools, pupils and parents regarding where the right to withdraw continues to apply and where it does not.”
“There would be incoherence in amending the 1980 act at this stage, although I recognise some of the concerns that have been voiced to that end. There is a great degree of complexity contained in the 1980 act, with the long-standing meaning attached to its terminology, which Mr Simpson rightly raises, but changes of this nature would require much more thorough consideration across the 1980 act to avoid unintended consequences. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 6 and 11. Amendment 21, in the name of Elena Whitham, would require ministers to provide statutory guidance on the meaning of religious observance.”
“I genuinely want the cabinet secretary’s help here, because my decision hinges on what she understands by the word “instruction”, as opposed to what she understands by the word “education”. Is she arguing that, legally, the two are the same? I genuinely still have to decide how I am voting on this point. We could easily think that the word “instruction” means religious observance. We could equally think that it means education. I genuinely want some advice—a steer—from the cabinet secretary. Jenny Gilruth: I accept Mr Simpson’s question and I recognise some of his concern. There is dubiety on that point from some stakeholders, as I have set out, and I have also made the point that the term appears in the legislation—in the 1980 act—a total of 27 times, I think.”
“What will it be saying in its manifesto in a few weeks’ time about its commitments not only to legislate, if it is in government, but to do so on a cross-party basis across Parliament? 15:16”
“That is why we need to enable the powers to adapt and continue to develop the FOI regime to be used more flexibly—and, I say again, to be used by Parliament, not just at a time when Government is ready. There will continue to be a tension between the urgency of action and the need to take time to consider all the details and issues that members have raised. I close by saying again that, if this opportunity is missed and we are left with the expectation that a committee bill in session 7 is the vehicle for FOI reform, it must be taken forward with momentum. It will have to be a year 1 commitment, not a year 5 commitment, in the next session of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the minister, in closing, will be able to give a clear commitment on behalf of his party.”
“In addition, I think that our cultural expectations as a society have been changed by the Covid-19 pandemic, among other things, and the whole inquiry process that came out of that. More people have reflected on, considered and changed their views on what information should be kept, and what information should not be allowed to be kept, about us as individuals and as communities. What is the balance between transparency and confidentiality, and how can we have an FOI regime that ensures that the powerful are held accountable for the way in which they exercise their power? All those things have changed since the system was designed, and they will continue to change.”
“However, the current Government has been slow to act and it is regrettable that it has taken a member’s bill to try to move things on. I think that there is consensus across the chamber that we need a regime that is fit for the 21st century—I think that that was the phrase that Mercedes Villalba used—and that the system that we have at the moment is not such a regime, whether that is in relation to the changing patterns around the outsourcing of public services, as was mentioned, and the scale of the data that is collected and the nature of that information, or whether that is in relation to the issues not just to do with our current use of AI but to do with what we will encounter as AI proliferates further through our society, which, again, will change the expectations and needs of the FOI regime.”
“We have the chance to end the years of secret Scotland and bring the country into the light of disclosure. Let us take it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. I call Patrick Harvie, who has up to four minutes. 15:13 Patrick Harvie: I may not use all of that time, Presiding Officer. I am not sure that I have a huge amount more to add beyond what I said in my opening speech, but I will reiterate that, if we do not progress with the bill, it will be a missed opportunity. There is probably more consensus on the topic than some of the more extreme rhetoric might suggest. I know that there will always be those who think that the Government of the day is somehow overly secretive and corrupt and all the rest of that kind of stuff. That hyperbole is nonsense. I think that most of us know that it is nonsense.”
“I can quite comfortably say that I agree with the general principles of the bill while having concerns about elements of it—at this stage, those concerns are not the point. I have supported Katy Clark on this throughout. I have attended events put on by her and the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland. George Adam, as he said earlier, was at one of those events, and it was at one such event in Glasgow that I met the late Lord Wallace, who was a strong supporter of what the member is trying to do. The 2002 act came into force just over 20 years ago, so surely now is the right time to update it and improve its provisions. The bill addresses shortcomings in the current legislation that have been identified by campaigners, journalists and members of the public.”
“It has been valuable, but if we were to follow the committee’s advice and wait for the Government, and then potentially wait for the committee to do something, we could be waiting for years and years, and we could be at the end of the next session of Parliament before anything happens, so we really have to agree to the bill at this stage. The policy memorandum sets out that “The main aim of the Bill is to improve transparency in Scotland by strengthening existing measures in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002”. The committee agreed that there is a need for freedom of information reform—it agreed with that point—and surely we are here today to decide whether we agree with the aims of the bill rather than the details. I always understood that to be what stage 1 is about—the details come later.”