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 5 of 8.
“Transport for London invested directly in the trains that were needed for Crossrail. Of course we need full borrowing powers, as Emma Roddick set out, but we can also use the powers that we have. On the passenger experience, a number of members have talked about timetables and whether we should go back to the timetables of the pre-Covid world. We have to recognise that the world has moved on, and it would be very difficult to restore in full the timetables that we had. There has been a shift to the busiest time— Kevin Stewart: Will the member take an intervention? Mark Ruskell: I will expand this point first. There has been a shift in that the greatest rail usage is now for leisure travel. The removal of peak rail fares speaks to the post-Covid world that we live in.”
“I am heartened by what the cabinet secretary said about Newburgh and a decision being made fairly soon, but that has been years in the making and community stamina is an issue. We have had a few contributions on rolling stock. I quite enjoyed Richard Leonard’s reflection that the rolling stock companies are, in effect, an oligopoly of extractive capitalism. We need to pay a bit more attention to the ASLEF report. The Government has the opportunity here, and in a number of other areas, to issue green bonds that would reinvest the revenues in our public transport system. I note that Caledonian Rail Leasing Ltd is owned by foreign companies. It generated £1.3 billion-worth of dividends between 2012 and 2018, which were largely removed from this country and invested elsewhere. Other models are possible; other models are normal elsewhere.”
“Rail station reopenings are treated on an individual, case-by-case, basis and not seen as being strategic, even though they are part of a network. A number of years ago, the Greens successfully made a case to the Scottish Government that we need a seed fund for local rail development to help communities put together business cases for station reopenings. I am pleased that Newburgh, St Andrews and other communities around Scotland have benefited from that, but there is a frustration that it takes years and years to get through the Scottish transport appraisal guidance process, to engage with Transport Scotland officials and regional transport partnerships and to build a case so that communities can become part of that bigger network.”
“The cabinet secretary is right to underline the successes that we have had in opening new stations: there are 25 stations on four new lines. I was in Levenmouth earlier this year when the rail line was reopened. It was a hugely emotional day that spoke to the perseverance that Claire Baker referred to as that community built a case for the reopening of the Levenmouth line. It was an incredible day and I am pleased that the number of services has now gone up to two every hour, which is fantastic. Sue Webber has a point. I never thought that I would say those words in the chamber, but she has a point about how we plan for new or reopened rail stations. The case for the reopening of individual rail stations does not feature anywhere at all in the strategic transport projects review, which is Scotland’s big strategic plan for transport.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please bring your remarks to a close, Mr Simpson. Graham Simpson: I will. There is more work to do, but we must celebrate what has been done well and must thank the staff of ScotRail for doing that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 16:42 Mark Ruskell: We have had a pretty passionate debate that has certainly given all the railway geeks in the chamber their six minutes of fame, although Sandesh Gulhane will not be replacing Michael “choo-choo” Portillo any time soon. Kevin Stewart spoke passionately about the campaign for rail in the north-east and Christine Grahame spoke passionately about the Borders railway and next steps there. We have heard about Winchburgh and Newburgh and about new lines in the Highlands.”
“We need more electrification and a plan for battery electric trains to reduce emissions and improve service quality and we need the hydrogen that Jamie Greene mentioned. Affordability is key. Some speakers have mentioned the removal of peak fares. I remember leading a debate here and Parliament voting to end peak fares. The Scottish Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do that, but I am glad that it has. We need integrated ticketing—the cabinet secretary knows that I have been going on about that for what seems like years—and it must work across trains, buses, trams and ferries. I am lucky enough to live in East Kilbride, which has had some welcome investment. We have two fantastic new stations and are going to get electric trains, which is great.”
“Fiona Hyslop: Does the member realise that there are hundreds of thousands of journeys, that cancellations affect just a few percent of those and that many are caused by infrastructure, for which Network Rail is responsible, or by the many storms that we have had, not least storm Floris a few weeks ago? Graham Simpson: I am going to cheer up the cabinet secretary, because I have some positive things to say. Overall customer satisfaction with ScotRail is 91 per cent. That is among the best in Britain and we must accept that. Punctuality is at 92.9 per cent, which sounds pretty good although it is still not good enough. We must accept that, but we do need more investment in infrastructure, more modern signalling, track upgrades and station improvements. It is still the case that ScotRail has one of the oldest fleets in Britain.”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has disappointed me. She persists in using kilometres, as she has done in the Government motion, when we use miles in this country. The “570 kilometres” in the motion should be “354 miles”. I think that we all want ScotRail to succeed. Many of us use the train regularly. It is the backbone of Scotland’s public transport system, but we must accept that there are challenges with it. In the past year alone, more than 17,000 train services were cancelled and far too many are still not arriving on time. Fiona Hyslop: Will the member give way on that point? Graham Simpson: I have very, very little time, but I will let the cabinet secretary in.”
“We have to ensure that they operate with integrity, that oversight of them is robust and that public money is treated with the respect that it deserves. Let the report be a turning point, and let us work together to restore the standards that the people of Scotland expect and deserve. 16:33”
“Incredibly, a public relations agency was appointed, at even more cost to the taxpayer, to advise on how to counter negative headlines about it. You could not make it up. WICS has now taken steps to improve financial controls. The Scottish Government has committed to strengthening sponsorship arrangements—not before time. We must also look at WICS’s international consultancy work, which has been put on hold for now. It generated income, but it contributed to the drift in culture. There is also the bigger question, raised already in the debate, of whether we should have the organisation at all. I think that the Government needs to look seriously at that question and consider getting rid of WICS altogether. Parliament has the job of holding public bodies to account.”
“There were lavish dinners, including one dinner for two at the posh Champany Inn in Linlithgow that cost £400 and another at the Road Hole Restaurant in St Andrews that cost £370. We also learned that a London-based KC was on a retainer, at huge cost, for more than a decade. What of the sponsorship team? Its role is to challenge, scrutinise and uphold standards, but it failed to do so. It failed to escalate concerns. It failed to intervene. It failed to protect the public interests. That is not good enough. The former chief executive’s departure is another example. A settlement agreement was signed in haste, bypassing proper procedures and removing the possibility of disciplinary action, and more than £105,000 was paid out with no clear justification and no accountability.”
“Retrospective approval—not because the spending met the standards of the Scottish public finance manual, but because the money had already been spent. Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Graham Simpson: If it is brief. Douglas Lumsden: I have a question on that £77,000. Was any of that able to be clawed back from that employee once they had left the company? Graham Simpson: The answer is no—the money had been spent. That was not an oversight; it was rubber stamping. We saw that Christmas gift vouchers had been handed out that were in breach of delegated limits. We saw expense claims without receipts, alcohol spending reimbursed and subsistence levels removed. Those were not isolated incidents.”
“Let us be clear: this was a major scandal. We have had some robust meetings, but these were some of the most astonishing meetings that I have ever been involved in. It was not just a case of a few minor missteps; it was a catalogue of serious failings—failings in financial control, in oversight, in leadership and in culture. Those failings have cost the public purse and, more important, have cost public trust. The reports from the Auditor General laid bare the reality. Splashing the cash was rife, and there was no one to turn the taps off. We saw that public money had been spent on overseas training courses, including £77,000 to send a staff member, who has now left the organisation, to Harvard. That was approved without proper scrutiny, competitive tendering or prior Government approval. What was the Scottish Government’s response?”
“Where that is in short supply, it is the job of this Parliament to force it out of the shadows into the light. That is what the Public Audit Committee has done with this investigation and with this report. These are matters not only of public interest; these are matters of public trust. On behalf of the Public Audit Committee, I move the motion in my name. I move, That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Public Audit Committee’s 1st Report, 2025 (Session 6), The 2022/23 and 2023/24 audits of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (SP Paper 783). 15:50”
“But let me make the point again: the members of the WICS board who presided over this need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask if they performed the job and if they set the standards of corporate governance we expect and demand in the public sector. In the report, we also make other recommendations, which I am sure other members of the committee will refer to. But let me be absolutely clear: WICS may be a small body, but the lessons to learn here are big ones. They are about governance, accountability and the proper use of public money. These lessons must be applied across all of Scotland’s public bodies and not just at WICS. At the heart of a properly functioning democracy must be accountability, and accountability demands transparency.”
“At the time of these audits, it employed just 25 members of staff. We heard that the Scottish Government sponsorship team did not view WICS as “a high-risk body”. In fact, the Government’s director general for net zero himself told us that he thought that, out of all the public sector bodies he is responsible for, WICS would have been “the one to operate in a highly efficient way”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 March 2024; c 25.] This proved to be nothing less than a monumental error of judgment. The work undertaken by Audit Scotland prompted WICS to carry out its own reviews into its financial transactions and its governance. It forced the Scottish Government to commission further independent reviews into these areas and into its own sponsorship oversight.”
“in challenging”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 March 2024; c 13.] the expenditure, as the money had already been spent. The Government has since backtracked on this, but this was not an isolated incident. Freedom of information requests later revealed that it was common practice for senior staff at WICS to attend expensive management training courses, in locations as far flung as not only North America but South America, too, where once again the total cost exceeded £70,000. Now, do not get me wrong: in our report, we recognise the importance of staff training and development to any public sector organisation. Of course we do, but this excessive expenditure was clearly unwarranted, unauthorised and unpardonable. Let me turn to another wider lesson from what happened at WICS. The commission is a small public body.”
“But let me turn to some of the most egregious examples identified by the audits. It has been widely reported that a senior member of staff attended a training course at the Harvard Business School in Boston, at a total cost of over £77,000. What has been less widely reported is that there was no competitive tendering exercise; that there was no business case made and no value-for-money case made; that there was no lock-in period for that member of staff involved, so they could just have left their job the day after the course was finished; and that, even though it breached the spending threshold of £20,000, there was no Scottish Government approval sought, either. In fact, when it was applied for retrospectively, we were told by a senior civil servant that “there was no material benefit ...”
“So this is, rightly, a matter of serious concern for this Parliament, but the fundamental question which has to be addressed today, which must also be a matter of serious concern to this Parliament and to this Government, is not just that these things happened; it is that these things were allowed to happen. Where was the challenge to these behaviours by the board of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland? Where was the challenge from the Scottish Government’s sponsorship team? And how on earth was it that WICS drifted into a culture of spending public money in ways that were directly and blatantly in breach of the rules of the Scottish public finance manual? I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy accepts this, and the new leadership team at WICS accepts it, too.”
“On that last point, does the convener agree that the committee never had an adequate explanation as to why the limit was removed? Richard Leonard: I thank Graham Simpson, who has been a very active member of this inquiry by the committee. I agree with him that there are still many unanswered questions. We revealed, over the course of the inquiry, both a careless neglect and a wilful indifference toward policies and procedures for things like the procurement of services like legal advice, recruitment searches and the booking of business- class air travel. And of course, this was all from the body that was created in statute by this Parliament to “promote the interests of Scottish Water customers to ensure long-term value and excellent levels of service.” You could not make it up.”
“I will allow a moment or two for front-bench members to organise for the next item of business. Scottish Government Priorities”
“I welcome the cabinet secretary to her position. We have had a couple of very useful discussions over the summer, and I am pleased that she agrees with me on rent controls exemptions. The cabinet secretary also agrees with me on the need to bring into force Awaab’s law to deal with damp and mould in all rented homes. Will she work with me on a possible amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill on that issue at stage 3, and will she tell us what enforcement mechanisms she foresees being introduced to ensure that landlords comply? Màiri McAllan: Over the summer, I have engaged with Graham Simpson on the Housing (Scotland) Bill’s detail. In advance of stage 3, I intend to continue that engagement with him and with other interested parties across the Parliament. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Simpson. 17:05”
“Maybe it will even happen in my lifetime—I hope so. In essence, we need a better public transport system, and that is why people want franchising in Strathclyde. The minister, who will respond to the debate, has written to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. However, in that letter, he does not seem to accept that things are taking too long and that there are problems, such as the problem with the panel appeal process that Patrick Harvie raised earlier. That really needs to change, and I look forward to speaking to the minister very soon—next week, in fact, when I hope that we can iron out some of those problems. Once again, Deputy Presiding Officer, I really do apologise for not being in the chamber in person. I prefer to do these things in person, but I am glad that we have had the debate.”
“The powers were introduced in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but the regulations have only just gone through, and it will be some years before a franchising model—if, indeed, the proposal goes ahead—is rolled out across Strathclyde. When I say “across Strathclyde”, I am talking about not just Glasgow but all the places around it, such as East Kilbride, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and the Renfrewshires. Those should all be part of an integrated transport system for Strathclyde. I am less hung up about who owns the buses than Patrick Harvie might be, but they need to operate under one badge, with one body— probably SPT—running them, setting fares and organising the routes, and perhaps also running a light rail system. Maybe we will, at some point, get the Clyde metro system that we have been promised.”
“Clare Haughey expressed the frustration that many of us have felt over the years when bus services have been removed. I live in an area of East Kilbride from which a bus service was removed some years ago. The service has not returned to what it was. I would describe the area that I live in as a bus desert, so it is no wonder that most people—including me—use cars, even though we would much rather be able to use public transport. That is why there are many of us in Parliament who favour a move to a franchising model in the Strathclyde region. One of the frustrations, though, is the time that that is taking—it is taking far too long.”
“I start by apologising to Patrick Harvie for not attending the debate in person. I did my very best, but I simply could not make my diary work. Patrick Harvie: [Made a request to intervene.] Graham Simpson: I think that Patrick is trying to intervene. If that is the case, I am happy to allow him to do so. Patrick Harvie: I am grateful to Graham Simpson. I apologise to him. I was not aware that he was joining us online when I made my comment about parties being represented in the debate. I put on record my recognition of his long- standing interest in the issue. Graham Simpson: That is very nice of Patrick to say. He is right. We have worked together on the issue for a long time. There has been cross- party agreement on the subject, and I was very happy to sign his motion when it appeared. I am really glad that we are having this debate.”
“The research and development investment that Scottish Enterprise has made, for example, helps it to compete. The two elements are important—reducing the cost base and ensuring that the company has buses to build.”
“Kate Forbes: The task force is a group of officials from the UK and Scottish Governments and it is looking at how far it can push the procurement and subsidy control rules, so it is entirely in line with what has been discussed. On the point about collaboration, I am more than delighted to collaborate with Graham Simpson on the ideas piece. I imagine that he does not procure buses directly, either. The collaboration that I am talking about is very much with procuring authorities—the people who own and run buses. That is key. I would not be so quick to dismiss the point about innovation. When we speak to the company, we hear that there are two elements. The first is that it needs an order book and the second is that it needs to be competitive.”
“The Deputy First Minister says that ADL cannot stand still. It is not standing still—it is moving to Scarborough. She says that she wants to support the company to innovate and bring forward new products. I think that it is a bit late for that. She also says that she wants to collaborate. I agree with her on that. She is busy talking to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, but she might want to listen. I think that we should collaborate across the chamber. The Deputy First Minister says that she has formed a task force. I would like to know what the task force has discussed already. To follow on from Michael Matheson’s question, what specific things is the task force looking at doing? If the Deputy First Minister wants to collaborate, I suggest that we get on with it in the next few days, because the company has not got long.”
“It is vital that we attract and welcome international students, just as it has always been vital that we welcome people from across the world who want to come here via legal routes. To that end, the Labour Government’s plan to tax international student fees at 6 per cent and reduce the terms of graduate visas— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Graham Simpson: —is very unhelpful. Thank you, Presiding Officer. 16:10”
“That includes the likes of Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is a problem which we are seeing right across the world and it is happening in Scotland too.” Glasgow City Council’s convener for homelessness, the SNP’s Allan Casey, has said that the asylum dispersal scheme is “damaging social cohesion” and placing unbearable pressure on the city’s housing supply. Like Liz Smith, I am not in favour of a Scottish visa and do not see how it could work, but there are sectors, such as care, that need help, and the Starmer Government’s approach to that has been wrong. I will end by mentioning students. I have been trying to help them through the Housing (Scotland) Bill. An amendment that I lodged would have helped foreign students who are asked to provide a UK-based guarantor, which is an impossibility for some.”
“They all pay their way, but they are on time-limited visas that will expire in July next year, four months after the funding for that project is due to end. Although visas are a UK Government matter, the funding is not entirely a UK Government matter and I therefore ask Kate Forbes whether there have been any discussions about extending such vital schemes, because those discussions are necessary, and those people need to stay. People who have come here via legal routes are to be welcomed and we need them, but those who arrive illegally are a different matter. The director general of the National Crime Agency, Graeme Biggar, last year highlighted the detrimental impact of illegal migration on Scotland when he said: “The main issue may be occurring in the Channel but we have others flying into different airports in the UK every single day.”
“I was only in my 20s then, but I pointed out to the experienced Mr Prentice that the rules that were in force when Mr Yip first applied to stay in the UK were the ones that counted, and that they favoured him, so the MP pressed on and we won. Thousands of Vietnamese people still arrive here by boat, but they are now largely illegal immigrants and are in an altogether different category to their earlier counterparts. I will come back to that idea. Fast forwarding to the here and now, last week, I visited a project in Hamilton that is looking after around 100 Ukrainians, most of whom have learned English—if they could not speak it before they came here—and have either found jobs or are at college.”
“There was a lot of racism about when I was at primary school in greater Manchester in the early 1970s and some of it was directed at my friends. Things have improved a bit since then, but not nearly enough. In my early days in journalism, in the early 1980s, I took up the case of one of the Vietnamese boat people—some here will not be old enough to know what I am talking about. He was a chap called Mr Yip, who had settled in Daventry, where I was working at the time, and was fighting to stay in the UK. Those people were fleeing repression and were very welcome indeed. Reg Prentice, who had sensibly left the Labour Party for the Conservatives and was the town’s MP at the time, took up the case but was on the brink of giving up and claimed that the immigration rules did not allow Mr Yip to stay.”
“This has been a really good debate so far and members have generally made good points. The Government is quite right to talk in its motion about the benefits of migration, a point that Kate Forbes made strongly. Liz Smith is also right to deal in her amendment with the difference between managed, legal migration and illegal migration, which is an issue not only on these shores. I might be wrong, but I think that I detected some consensus between Liz Smith and Kate Forbes, so perhaps Kate Forbes might consider voting for Liz Smith’s amendment on that basis, as we are all being so friendly. If I can be honest, some of the objections to immigration over the years have been rooted in racism, but others have not. Attitudes have changed for the better during my lifetime.”
“I think that 75 per cent of the tree planting that is presently going on in the UK is happening in Scotland. We are proud of that record and we will continue to work on it.”
“Last month, the Climate Change Committee advised that nature-based measures such as tree planting and peatland restoration could contribute 13 per cent of emissions reductions by 2045, but that would need the rate of tree planting to more than double in the next two decades. Will the minister admit that—aside from one good year— we are not going to achieve that? Alasdair Allan: Scotland has 1.5 million hectares of woodland, which covers 19 per cent of our country. The age structure of the forest estate and of the trees that are concerned means that the carbon sink that I referred to earlier will reduce over the 15 years to come. We need to plant more woodland, and we are planting more trees. Scotland is far more effective at planting trees than other nations of the UK.”
“Research from the Get Glasgow Moving campaign suggests that there will not be a single franchised bus in the Strathclyde region until 2030. I think that that is being optimistic, actually. That will be 11 years after the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed. What is the Scottish Government doing to expedite the process? Jim Fairlie: The member is well aware that the process will be long and rigorous. Claire Baker mentioned removing some of the issues that are making things difficult—I presume that that is to do with the role of the panel. The panel will be vital in ensuring that there is rigour in the franchising process. It is only right that there is a rigorous process to make sure that the franchising is done properly—that will allow us to ensure that we have a transport system that works. Net Zero Target 7.”
“I am pleased that the 2011 act has been used in Scotland. The Law Commission deals with difficult areas of the law. Its work is vital, and we should all be thankful to the current commissioners and to those who have gone before. I will not be around—I am afraid to say—in another 60 years, but I very much hope that the 2085 version of Stuart McMillan will lodge a similar motion for a debate in the Parliament to celebrate the Law Commission’s 120th anniversary. 17:42”
“However, I finish by mentioning an important piece of work that I was not in Parliament to work on but in which I had a small part, and that is the work that led to the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011. For those who do not know, the 2011 act means that people can now be retried in Scotland for serious offences for which they have been cleared, if new and compelling evidence—such as DNA evidence—is found. The matter was raised in the Scottish Parliament by Annabel Goldie after a speech that I made at a party policy conference, in which I told how the man who was accused of killing my sister in England could be retried because the law there allowed it, but the law in Scotland, where she was born, would not. New evidence was found in that case, and he was retried and is still behind bars.”
“It has been working on that since 2022, and it hopes to be in a position in the future to provide the Government with a report detailing its recommendations and to produce a draft bill by the spring of next year. I thank Professor Frankie McCarthy, who is leading on that, and her small team for their diligent work and for keeping us informed. It is likely that, by the time we see legislation, it will have been 10 years, spanning three parliamentary sessions, since MSPs first got together to tackle the issue, and that is a frustration. I have also been involved in scrutinising Law Commission bills on judicial factors, moveable transactions and prescription and title to moveable property.”
“The current one, which shows that we can achieve things in this Parliament if we work together and engage with the Government, is the work that the commission is doing on tenement law. That directly followed on from a report that was produced by the cross-party working group on tenement maintenance. The group was established in 2018, with Ben Macpherson as its first chair—I took over when he, justifiably, became a minister. We produced a series of recommendations for the Government, including a requirement for tenements to be subject to a building condition inspection every five years, the establishment of compulsory owners associations and the establishment of building reserve funds. The Law Commission was tasked by the Government with looking at the owners association issue.”
“I am not sure that I can be as sexy as that. I congratulate Stuart McMillan on securing the debate. It would be remiss of the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee not to congratulate the Scottish Law Commission on reaching the age of 60. As a former convener of that committee, and as someone who is around the same age as the commission, I had to add my voice to Mr McMillan’s. It has been my pleasure to visit the commission—although I have not yet been to its new offices; perhaps there will be an invite—to chat to the commissioners and to meet the current chair, Lady Paton. It is good to see them all here today. I want to mention a couple of pieces of work of the commission. One is current and one is past.”
“I have no doubt that members will note the decision by the Minister for Public Finance to recall the appeal, and I trust that members will now allow the minister the time and the space that he requires to make an informed and robust decision. The Scottish ministers remain committed to the role and purpose of national parks in Scotland. Our national parks in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms bring significant economic, social and environmental benefits to their local areas and the communities within them. However, I cannot comment further on the matter in the context of a live planning appeal. The Presiding Officer: I call Daniel Johnson to wind up the debate. 16:57”
“The views that have been expressed today indicate that there are strong views on the proposal. As I said in my opening remarks, planning is, by its nature, something that can attract strong views and in relation to which competing considerations must be balanced. I am fully aware that members across the chamber will regularly receive correspondence from constituents about planning cases and that the integrity of our planning system is of great importance to us all. That is why it is vital that we maintain the integrity of our planning system by ensuring that decisions are taken in accordance with our policy and legislative frameworks, in the proper way.”
“It must ensure that it brings common sense to the planning process; listens to the concerns of local people, not only in this case but in others; and stops unwanted plans going ahead in Scotland’s communities today. The Presiding Officer: I call Tom Arthur. You have a generous five minutes, minister. 16:56 Tom Arthur: Presiding Officer, you will appreciate the need for me to keep my remarks brief, given that the motion that we are debating relates to a live planning case and in view of the need to respect the ministerial code and to avoid prejudicing future planning decisions. The views that have been expressed today indicate that— Jackie Baillie: Will the minister take an intervention on a factual point? Tom Arthur: I am afraid that I will not. I set out my position in my opening remarks.”
“Craig Hoy: I welcome the fact that, in the case of the Galloway national park proposal, local opposition was taken on board, but ministers must ask why there was such a crucial failure in the consultation process, which lacked transparency and left many people in Dumfries and Galloway and Ayrshire in the dark and concerned about the proposal, which I am glad to say was rejected last week. If the SNP learns anything from those examples, it ought to be that listening to local people—those who will be directly affected by developments— must now form a more intrinsic and influential part of the planning process. On that basis, I am glad that the Government has called in the Flamingo Land application, but it must now reject the proposals.”
“However, if we listen to the residents in Loch Lomond, we should also listen to residents in the Scottish Borders and the north-east when they oppose large-scale energy developments that the Government insists it must push through in order to meet its net zero and energy targets. For example, the Government recently gave consent to plans for the replacement of overhead power lines between Fort Augustus and Skye. Although that will bring greater connectivity, the opposition of local people appears to have been ignored, as were the objections from Highland Council. Ross Greer: Will the member take an intervention? Craig Hoy: I am afraid that I do not have time. The Presiding Officer: Mr Hoy must conclude.”
“It is welcome that common sense has prevailed, but I echo Jackie Baillie and Pam Gosal in wondering what on earth it was that changed in ministers’ heads—other than that they were about to be defeated in the chamber, as they will be in the next five or 10 minutes. I am concerned that the Government is following a worrying pattern of ignoring the concerns of those who would be directly impacted by large- scale planning proposals, in pursuit of what can at times be read as agenda-backed plans. I welcome the fact that Ross Greer has been supportive of the efforts to campaign against the proposal and has, in many respects, helped to lead that campaign.”