Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 22.
“Jenny Gilruth: The exact alternative has already been articulated by both Mr Rennie and Mr Greer in their amendments, which talk about the need for a review and potential legislation in this space. Ms Duncan-Glancy is following the exact line of argument that she pursued at stage 2, in which she would look to remove the function without first reviewing the scope of the qualifications that are covered and without reviewing the staff and how her proposal would operate with regard to their contracts. To me, it appears that Ms Duncan-Glancy has not listened to Parliament. I have listened to Parliament and have reflected on my position, and I have engaged with Mr Rennie and Mr Greer to arrive at a position on which Parliament can come together. Douglas Ross’s amendments seek to establish the office of the chief regulator for examinations.”
“In addition, creating a body at stage 3 strikes me—to quote Ms Duncan-Glancy—as being not an optimal use of good law. Ms Duncan-Glancy also seeks to establish the position of a chief regulator to oversee accreditation in that new body. I fear that that would further confuse an already complex landscape, and I urge members not to support her amendments in this group. Pam Duncan-Glancy: If the cabinet secretary does not support any of the proposals that Scottish Labour Party members or, indeed, Conservative members across the chamber have put forward, how is she going to give effect to the promise that she made at stage 2 to move accreditation from SQA and provide an alternative? What exact alternative is the Government providing today?”
“I am particularly pleased that, through our dialogue with Mr Rennie on his amendments, we have been able to propose a pragmatic and deliverable way by which we can be further assured about the quality assurance and standards of our school- based qualifications—which, I remind members, are currently not covered by accreditation. I urge all members to support the amendments in the names of Mr Greer and Mr Rennie in this group. 16:45 Let me turn to the other amendments in the group. Pam Duncan-Glancy seeks to move the accreditation function to a new public body, which she seeks to establish elsewhere in the bill. I am not able to support the creation of an additional public body, as we discussed extensively at stage 2, particularly given the current financial constraints on the public sector in Scotland.”
“Ross Greer’s amendments will further strengthen the leadership and separation of the accreditation function in qualifications Scotland and will link the role of the chief accreditation officer to the accreditation committee. A key theme in debates at stage 2 was the scope of the qualifications that accreditation will cover, and, as we have heard, Mr Rennie’s amendments will strengthen the review of the scope and location of accreditation while ensuring that Scottish ministers will have to follow a timely and transparent process with Parliament when that review concludes. That approach recognises that further work is required to fully assess the scope and location of the function and to provide an appropriate mechanism for ministers to take forward a review and any future legislation that is required.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: I have outlined why Unite the Union said that at this very late stage in the game, and I have reminded Parliament that the union considers that the function and the scope of regulation and accreditation should have been considered long before now and been moved into a separate body. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, while the Government has dithered and delayed over the proper reform of education in Scotland, the morale of the staff at the SQA has fallen to an all- time low on the Government’s watch? Jenny Gilruth: I say to Ms Duncan-Glancy that reform is right here, in front of her. People can either choose to be part of that process or they can opt out. I have to say that it sounds as though the Scottish Labour Party is going to opt out.”
“I am also grateful to the chair of the SQA, who— as Mr Ross alluded to—provided for an hour’s session with all members to set out the current position in relation to accreditation and to talk about the experience of staff. One aspect that has been missing from the debate thus far on this group of amendments is the fact that there are a number of staff in the SQA at the current time and we are talking about their jobs. We need to do so diligently and with respect for the positions that they hold. Their trade union has written to the Parliament. I read out in my intervention on Ms Duncan-Glancy the position of Unite the Union that accreditation should remain within the SQA at the current time, and I think that that is an important point.”
“I said at stage 2 that, in this process, we might need to settle for the least bad option, and at that point I suspected that that option might be moving accreditation into the inspectorate, flawed as that would be. This package of measures is better than that. It is about having a separation of roles and functions, robust governance arrangements and a clear process for making the next big decision in a considered manner. I urge members to agree to the amendments in my name and in the name of Willie Rennie, and, as we come to them, those in the name of the cabinet secretary. Jenny Gilruth: I am grateful to all members of the Education, Children and Young People Committee for their further engagement and collaboration on the matters in this group following stage 2 consideration of the bill.”
“In summary, I believe that this will be a major change from the SQA in both form and function. We will have a separate chief executive, chief examiner and chief accreditation officer. The chief examiner will have the expert group on standards advising them, and the chief accreditation officer will have the accreditation committee, which will also be made up of external experts rather than staff. They will be required in law to discharge their duties independently of one another. Those are strong arrangements for day 1 of qualifications Scotland. The review will give us time to consider the much bigger question of the scope of the accreditation function and to address that properly at a later point.”
“That replicates my stage 2 amendments with regard to the interest committees, and I think that it is a far more important provision for the accreditation committee. I do not think that it would be appropriate for members of staff to sit on the committee that is accrediting those qualifications. That is all that I will say specifically on my amendments in the group, but I will give a bit of brief context to how they fit into the wider reform. As I mentioned, my amendments in group 22 will require the creation of a chief examiner alongside the chief executive and chief accreditation officer. Although the accreditation officer will be accountable to the accreditation committee, the chief examiner will be responsible for responding to the advice of the expert group on standards, to be established by Willie Rennie’s amendment 125.”
“Separating those roles will be a further safeguard. It will ensure that the roles and responsibilities are distributed appropriately within qualifications Scotland. Amendment 288 is consequential to amendment 282. Importantly, taken together, the package will provide clearer leadership, with an appropriate degree of independence for the accreditation function within qualifications Scotland. Amendments 305 and 306 will strengthen the independence of the accreditation committee by providing that staff members of qualifications Scotland cannot be members of that committee, although, of course, they could attend meetings as observers or participate at the discretion of the convener.”
“The committee managed to get through the stage 1 process largely without addressing that question. To be honest, if we look back at the Official Report of the stage 1 proceedings, we all need to reflect on the fact that we were often talking about an accreditation function that did not yet exist as though it had already accredited the national qualifications. Collectively, our contributions to the debate missed the mark, and responsibility for that should fall not just on the Government but on all members. We must reflect on that. We have a process here, primarily through Willie Rennie’s amendments, to address the fact that we did not have that debate—that we did not consider that evidence properly—and we can now do so. My amendment 285 will guarantee that the role of the chief accreditation officer cannot be held by the chief executive.”
“Mr Greer, please continue. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the member take an intervention? Ross Greer: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will be happy to take Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention. Pam Duncan-Glancy: In the interests of time, I will save the rest of my remarks for closing speeches. On the member’s last point, does he agree that the fact that the Government had not considered those circumstances means that it is yet again proposing a review, which is an unsatisfactory situation? We really should be moving towards agreeing today the legislation that will finish the job. Ross Greer: In many ways, I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy. I, too, wish that those issues had been considered before now. However, we should all take some responsibility for that; it is not just on the Government.”
“The roles of other individuals within the organisation touch on accreditation, but, as things stand, that group of 20 people provides a substantial but discrete function. There would need to be a significant expansion of that group for us to deliver accreditation for national qualifications. That is what we should consider, but we have not previously considered it as a key point. It would involve such a significant change, and it would require such a significant increase in capacity, that the right process for it would be the review that Willie Rennie proposes and the follow-up to that review. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Greer, will you resume your seat for a second? Too many conversations are starting to happen around the chamber. If members need to have conversations, I would be grateful if they took them outside.”
“That will be an important step to further strengthen the separation of the accreditation functions from qualifications Scotland’s other functions. Amendment 284 sets out that the accreditation committee will have oversight of the setting of that role and that it will require to be independent from the chief examiner. Although it will enable the sharing of information as appropriate, there will be a clear separation between the two. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the member set out what would happen to the accreditation function should it be decided that school-based qualifications should be accredited? Ross Greer: The first and most obvious impact is that the capacity of the accreditation function would need to be increased significantly. The team that currently delivers accreditation within the SQA contains in the region of 20 people.”
“Willie Rennie’s amendments will create the review process that we will need if we are to decide on the scope of the accreditation function and the mechanisms to deliver it. Accrediting all SQA national qualifications properly is probably a good idea, but it would involve a huge change that we did not consider earlier in the bill process. It did emerge as a significant issue, but it was not thoroughly considered. My amendments on creating the role of the chief examiner will come up much later, in group 22, but I will touch on them now in order to give members a clearer idea of the proposed overall shape of the organisation should all the amendments in the package be agreed to. First, I will run through each amendment in the group. Amendment 282 will establish the role of chief accreditation officer.”
“We might ask, “The accreditation of what?”, we have become so focused on matters of location rather than the function itself. As I said earlier, moving that function would not prevent a repeat of the higher history debacle that we saw recently, because, as it stands, the accreditation function does not accredit the SQA’s own national qualifications. The package of amendments lodged by me, the cabinet secretary and Willie Rennie addresses both the function and the form of the accreditation process. My amendments will establish the separate roles of chief examiner and chief accreditation officer at qualifications Scotland, and they will create a clear separation between their functions.”
“Ross Greer: Given that some of the amendments before us were lodged and debated at stage 2, I will speak to them today only if my view of them, and the position of the Scottish Greens, has changed since then. I will not repeat the remarks that I made at stage 2. If members are interested in my position and that of the Greens on those issues, they can check the Official Report. The debate on the accreditation function has clearly become the most contentious aspect of the bill process, which was not necessarily what we expected when it started, some years ago. In the eyes of some members it has clearly become the litmus test for whether there will be real change. However, that debate has become thoroughly confused, as Willie Rennie set out at the start of the debate on this group.”
“I hope that the Parliament will strongly consider supporting the amendments in my name, which, a decade on, could establish the independent regulator that has been called for by some in education circles for many years and provide the insurance process that will mean that our young people get the grades that they deserve in examinations in the future. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members will note that we have now passed the time limit proposed by the Parliamentary Bureau, and agreed by the Parliament, for the debate on this group. I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) of standing orders to allow the debate on the group to continue beyond the time limit in order to avoid the debate being unnecessarily curtailed. I call Ross Greer to speak to amendment 282 and other amendments in the group.”
“I believe that that would give students, parents, staff and many others more enthusiasm in relation to getting involved in an investigation of that type, and that, crucially, the outcome of any such investigation would have more credibility. Finally, amendment 196 would stipulate that the chief regulator should provide an annual report to Parliament. I have tried, working with both Government and the legislation team within Parliament, to come forward with a series of amendments to complement other processes and aspects of the bill, whether they come from Government or other Opposition members.”
“Amendment 194 looks at the core responsibilities of that chief regulator and, crucially, establishes the independence of the chief regulator from both qualifications Scotland and the Scottish Government. I am sure that the ministers on the front bench and their supporters behind them will welcome that, because, if there is another higher history problem, it will not be Government ministers that are held to account for it, but the chief regulator, appointed by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Amendment 195 is about the complaints process. It would establish a process for complaints to be made, investigated and determined if a higher history problem was repeated, or there was a problem in a different subject or in different circumstances.”
“I also remember the meeting that I had with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 2, in which she said that she was going to look at the art of the possible. I think that these amendments are the art of the possible. As Stephen Kerr said, they complement many of the other amendments, whether lodged by Stephen Kerr, Pam Duncan- Glancy, or even Willie Rennie himself. I may not be delighted by Willie Rennie’s amendments or how he has got there, but he has certainly made progress, in his view, in his discussions with the cabinet secretary. However, the chief regulator, independent of Government and of qualifications Scotland, could also complement Willie Rennie’s amendments and, I believe, the amendments lodged by Ross Greer. Briefly, I note that amendment 193 establishes the independent office of a chief regulator.”
“That raised so many concerns that it prompted me to go back and look at how the issue had been discussed in the past, and that petition from back in 2013 seemed as pertinent in 2025 as it was 12 years ago. I spoke to Ian Thow when I lodged my original amendments on the issue at stage 2. They have now been relodged, and he is still keen for his proposal from more than a decade ago—it was considered by the Public Petitions Committee but taken no further—to be debated and, hopefully, supported in this Parliament. I hope that, through my remarks and through the amendments before us, I have stipulated how we have overcome the issues around cost and the establishment of a brand new body that members were concerned about.”
“Although we hope that that was not the case this year, last year shone a light on an area where there were multiple concerns not only from pupils and students who did not get the grades that they wanted or expected, but also from staff—and not only staff in the schools who taught their pupils and students throughout the year and expected them to achieve better, but also staff in the SQA. We had whistleblowers telling us that something had gone wrong and that something needed to be looked at, but we got nothing. Months passed before the former chair of the SQA belatedly commissioned a report that was essentially an internal report from an organisation that was marking its own homework, even though it was peer reviewed by someone outwith the SQA and outwith Scottish education.”
“I will therefore briefly make the following points. My amendments go back to a petition that was submitted to this Parliament in 2013. In PE1484, Ian Thow asked for an independent regulator for national exams set by the SQA. Twelve years on, we still do not have that independent regulator. At the time, the Scottish Government said in response to that petition that it was not really a matter for it, but a matter for the SQA. The SQA said at the time that it was not needed because there was no issue with the exams that it was running and no complaints, and so there was no need for an independent regulator. I think that everyone who has mentioned higher history today accepts that there were major problems with last year’s exam.”
“What I have therefore resubmitted is a proposal for there to be a chief regulator, which is one individual—one additional person—who would be appointed to serve under qualifications Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, and whose office would be staffed by qualifications Scotland staff, who would work to investigate the complaints that went to the office. We therefore would not have the overheads and financial burden of a whole new additional body; we would have only one person, who would use the existing resources to do their work. 16:30 I know that Willie Rennie and others are keen for us to make progress, but many members in this chamber did not sit through stage 2 and do not know the background to my amendments, or to the amendments that everyone else has lodged.”
“The main concern of John Mason and Ross Greer, who sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and others, centred on the additional significant costs in setting up a whole new body. Although I think that having a wholly independent body that had no interaction at all with the Scottish Government or qualifications Scotland would be ideal, I accept that, given that members have voted on a commitment not to establish additional bodies, including in the bill at this stage a provision to set one up would conflict with what the Parliament has already decided.”
“Mr Rennie might not like to hear it, but, from the point of view of those who are still critical of the bill, it is important that there is an understanding that some of us on the Opposition benches went into that in good faith, in the hope that something could be achieved. Our frustration that deficiencies in Government, whatever those were, did not allow us to do that is genuine. However, at that invitation from Willie Rennie, I come to my amendments. Amendments 193 to 196 do much the same as what I proposed at stage 2; however, there is a big difference. Again, Mr Rennie might agree with an accusation that is made against me—that I do not always appear to listen to my committee colleagues. However, I have listened very carefully to the concerns that they raised on the amendments at stage 2.”
“Mr Ross has spent five minutes or so discussing what has gone wrong in the past. Surely he should use the opportunity to discuss what his amendments propose, so that members can consider whether they are appropriate. Douglas Ross: It is fair to say that my relationship with Willie Rennie has taken a bit of a dip in recent weeks. I had hoped that it might go back up again but, based on that intervention, it has not done so. I gently say to him that, surely, to explain the amendments that I have had to relodge, I have to explain why I have relodged them. When I withdrew my amendments at stage 2, following an intervention from Mr Rennie, I did not think that I would need to bring them back at stage 3, because we were to have collegiate and cross- party discussions to bring forward amendments that we could all get behind.”
“That would give us an opportunity to continue the engagement and discussion. Willie Rennie: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: The bill has been rushed into our final week before the summer recess, but there have been opportunities to extend the process and the time for Parliament to debate what is a crucial issue. Willie Rennie, to whom I am about to give way, knows that it is a crucial issue. Although he believes that he has made progress—others would question that—surely, a bill on the education of Scotland’s children now and in the future deserves the ultimate scrutiny of this Parliament. Even if that takes a bit longer, we should do it. Willie Rennie: It is interesting that Douglas Ross is complaining about the conduct of others. Nevertheless, it is important that we get to the substance of this.”
“Why are we trying to cram 300-plus amendments into a bill that many of us in the chamber feel is deeply flawed and will not deliver on its promise? Why are we spending time on it now? Should we not have taken the summer to have proper discussions and come back to the bill at the beginning of next term, so that we could properly address the issues together as parliamentarians? Douglas Ross: Yes, we should have done that. Indeed, I still make that plea. If the cabinet secretary wished to use her prerogative to let us all away a bit early today, she could say that she will pause the bill at this stage. I am sure that she could have a discussion with the parliamentary business manager, who is looking at me with great interest—I would take an intervention from him as well.”
“That was the only element of engagement—that and a promise to come back to us. Had it not been for colleagues reminding me about the deadline for lodging amendments, I would have missed it. I just assumed that we had a bit more time, because I had not heard back from the Government. I stupidly trusted the Government to follow through on its promises and commitments. I welcome the genuine apology that I got from the senior civil servant. I understand that the team is dealing with a lot in relation to the bill, but they made a pledge, a promise and a commitment to engage, and they let us down on that. That is why I resubmitted my amendments. Stephen Kerr: It being the case that Douglas Ross says that he received an apology from a senior civil servant, why on earth are we doing what we are doing today?”
“People have differing views on the current and, certainly, the former leadership of the SQA, but the meeting was set up as an opportunity, ahead of one of the scheduled meetings of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, to speak with the cabinet secretary and her officials. What we got in the end was a proposal from the current chair of the SQA— which, we were told, the cabinet secretary only found out about half an hour before the meeting. That is really not the way to do business. The individual cross-party meeting, which the cabinet secretary and her officials took part in, was, in my view, going to be a place for individual engagement with the cabinet secretary and Government officials in order to come up with amendments that we could get behind. Sadly, that was lacking.”
“I was deeply disappointed that the process that we went through in good faith, which was responded to in good faith at the time by the cabinet secretary and her officials, fell down the moment we walked out the door. Pam Duncan-Glancy: On the offer to work across parties, specifically on accreditation, does the member agree that the meeting that we had made that quite difficult, because it was about promoting what the SQA’s current chair thought was the way forward? Douglas Ross: I agree whole-heartedly with that point, which Pam Duncan-Glancy made in her opening remarks as well as in that intervention.”
“I therefore ask members to imagine my disappointment when that did not happen. In a room just downstairs from the chamber, I had a reassurance from the cabinet secretary and her most senior officials, who are with us in the chamber today, that they would get back to us well in advance of the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments with their feedback and potential opportunities for further interaction on amendments. Had it not been for the opportunity that I took in the tea room behind the chamber to ask the cabinet secretary what was happening with those discussions, I might never have received the full apology that I got from her officials that they forgot to get back to Opposition members to follow up on the promises and commitments that they had made.”
“I will focus on the few amendments in the group that are in my name, but I have to say that I was disappointed by the lack of outreach from the cabinet secretary. I, along with my Conservative colleagues, had one 20-minute meeting with her. At stage 2, when the cabinet secretary pledged not to push her amendments and members agreed to withdraw or not move their amendments, there was an understanding that there would be more extensive dialogue than one 20-minute meeting. At that meeting, I was briefly encouraged. There was certainly an indication from the cabinet secretary that she was willing to take on board the concerns from across the political spectrum, and there was a willingness on the part of her officials to work with Opposition members to bring forward amendments that we could all rally round and support.”
“My remarks might not be briefer than Stephen Kerr’s, but I hope that they will feel briefer. He gave us an extensive tour through the series of amendments in the group. I came into this debate thinking that I hold some responsibility for the number of amendments that we have at stage 3—300 is a significant number of amendments to have at this stage. I asked myself whether I had failed as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee because we did not whittle down far enough the 400 amendments that we had at stage 2. However, as other speakers have said, many of the issues were fully debated at committee—I welcome that—but they were not resolved at that stage because of Government commitments to go away and do further work, which would be done on a constructive, cross-party basis.”
“The failure to take that opportunity has led us to where we are today. Mr Ross mentioned alleged criminality, which I think was also mentioned by Mr Briggs. I have already sought assurances on that matter from the Scottish Funding Council and Professor Pamela Gillies. They were both clear that there was no evidence of criminality, but I wanted to assure myself of that point. The Government would of course co-operate with any inquiry in that regard. The Presiding Officer: I am keen to include all members who have pressed their request-to- speak buttons, so concise questions and responses would be appreciated.”
“However, 16 June was last Monday, which was several days before the Gillies report was published, and we were all told that, immediately after the publication of the report, the chair of the court resigned. Did the cabinet secretary misspeak when she said that it was on 16 June, or were people resigning from the court and the top of Dundee university before the report was even published? Jenny Gilruth: On that final point, I clearly have the date inadvertently wrong in my speaking note, so I will seek to correct the record at a later date. In relation to the thrust of Mr Ross’s question, I agree with him on the damning verdict of the report. He talked through the timeline. On reading the report last week, I was struck by the fact that, throughout, there were various points at which intervention could and should have happened.”
“The Gillies report sets out a timeline and a series of decisions that reek of incompetence and corruption. I listened to the cabinet secretary’s earlier response in which she said that, based on the Gillies report, she does not believe that the level of criminality has yet been breached. However, if further information comes forward or if that subjective view alters, can she confirm that the Scottish Government will fully co-operate with any criminal investigation surrounding Dundee university and the people who are in charge of it? In response to an earlier question, the cabinet secretary said that the court elected the interim chair on 16 June.”
“As I said in response to Carol Mochan, we have already increased general practice funding this year. Further initiatives have come through the budget and through the programme for government, including the additional cardiovascular enhanced services that we negotiated with the BMA. However, I recognise Douglas Ross’s point that, if we are to truly shift the balance of care, we need to shift the balance of resource. I am currently working with the BMA in order to achieve just that. NHS Tayside (Infrastructure) 6.”
“In my question in response to the cabinet secretary’s statement yesterday, I mentioned the constructive meeting that I had with Dr Robert Lockhart from Elgin and his colleagues. Although the cabinet secretary gave me a positive response yesterday, he did not answer the specific points that I raised. I therefore ask him again: what percentage of the health budget is currently spent on general practice, and what percentage does he believe should be spent on it to allow GPs to deliver all the services that they believe they can? Neil Gray: I recognise that the BMA has set out its position that the percentage of the NHS budget that goes into general practice is not sufficient. That is why we are working with the BMA to increase the investment going into general practice.”
“From Eyemouth to Elgin, people are being attacked by gulls, but NatureScot does not record any of those instances. Does the minister believe that NatureScot should record that information and take cognisance of it when it approves or rejects licence applications? Jim Fairlie: That is a fair point. If Mr Ross wants me to put that on the record with NatureScot, I will certainly do so when I have discussions with it. The purpose of getting a licence is to deal with seagulls that are causing health and safety issues—that is already in the licensing application process. I am happy to take on board Mr Ross’s point. When we discuss further how to protect people from marauding seagulls, we will take that into account. Food and Drink Export Statistics 5.”
“Humanitarian aid has been mentioned quite a lot during the debate, and it is part of the motion that we are debating. However, we know that there are issues with Hamas continuing to misappropriate humanitarian aid supplies, using aid as a vital tool to preserve its own influence and control over Gazans. The new model of aid distribution that has been introduced with the support of the US, which involves the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation providing aid directly to Gazan families, is to ensure that that aid reaches the civilians who need it and is not repurposed for violence. The international community has been clear that Hamas should play no future role—”
“Outside our Parliament, on almost a weekly basis—and, I know, in Glasgow on a weekly basis—we see people, including families, worried about their loved ones in Israel whom they have not heard from since 7 October. We cannot allow that to be forgotten. Although the motion echoes the UN concerns about addressing the broader context, it fails to mention the terrorist attack by Hamas. It seems to call for an oversimplification of the issues that we have in front of us. Some of the atrocities on 7 October were filmed on dashcams and mobile phones by the terrorists themselves. There might be disagreements in the chamber, but I implore MSPs to watch a 47-minute film of footage that was pieced together, to properly understand the sheer evil that was witnessed by many on 7 October.”
“I do not doubt the passion and the sincerity with which Bill Kidd has spoken today. I read his motion very carefully. Some motions that we have debated in the chamber about Palestine have gone further than Bill Kidd’s; however, I felt that there was a lack of balance in it, and I will use my time to look at the situation without diminishing in any way the atrocities that we have seen in Gaza and the impact that they are having on a daily basis. We must also acknowledge what happened on 7 October—the terrorist attack that saw women raped, mutilated and murdered and countless people across Israel killed, with many still held hostage. Their families across the world are waiting for news, but they are not hearing a single thing.”
“We pay taxes like everyone else, so it is important that people who speak Gaelic have opportunities to live in and use Gaelic all the time.”
“Agus bidh fhios aigesan nach eil na rudan sin samhlachail—gu bheil e cudromach gu bheil sinn a’ faicinn a’ chànan againn fhèin. Tha sinn a’ pàigheadh chìsean mar a h-uile duine eile, agus mar sin tha e cudromach gu bheil cothroman aig daoine aig a bheil Gàidhlig a bhith a’ fuireach agus a’ cleachdadh na Gàidhlig fad na h-ùine. Following is the simultaneous interpretation: I am surprised that the member is asking about cars and such like, especially after a budget in which there is more money overall for Gaelic— more than £30 million, which is £5 million more than there was for Gaelic in the previous budget. Further, he will know that these things are not symbolic—that it is important that we see our own language.”
“The Deputy First Minister has spoken about the investment that comes with the bill. What are her reflections on previous investment in the Gaelic language? I am thinking about police cars and uniforms being labelled with both the language of Scotland and Gaelic. Could that investment have been put, years ago, into the Gaelic services that we see today, rather than being spent on something symbolic on police cars and uniforms? Would that have been a better way to spend that money? Kate Forbes: Tha an t-iongnadh orm gu bheil am ball a’ faighneachd mu chàraichean is rudan mar sin, gu h-àraidh às dèidh buidsead far a bheil barrachd airgead gu lèir airson na Gàidhlig, barrachd na £30 millean, £5 millean a bharrachd na bha anns a’ bhuidsead airson na Gàidhlig roimhe.”
“We are discussing how we can continue to support general practice and its sustainability, and how it can deliver more in our communities, as both Dr Lockhart and I want to see.”
“The cabinet secretary has spoken about preventative spend. Does he agree that GPs can play a crucial role? I recently met Dr Robert Lockhart from Elgin, whom I think the cabinet secretary met on Friday. He discussed what they can do locally and nationally with more funding. What percentage of the health budget is currently spent on general practice? What percentage does the cabinet secretary believe it should be to allow our GPs to deliver more? Neil Gray: I did, indeed, meet Dr Lockhart on Friday, and I was very pleased to do so. We had an informative discussion, including with the community council, which Mr Lochhead also took part in. The areas that relate to the latter part of Douglas Ross’s question are currently matters of discussion and negotiation with the British Medical Association.”