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 16 of 22.
“This morning, I received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to a letter that I sent him about the case. What does the First Minister say to Sarah? What will be done to reduce NHS waiting times for gynaecology in Grampian, which are among the longest in the country?”
“My constituent Sarah Beaton, from Elgin, asked me to share her experience of the health service in the hope that it improves things for others. Last June, Sarah was bleeding heavily during her period and went to see her general practitioner. Following multiple visits, she was recommended for a scan. There was a nine-month waiting list to get a scan. When she received the scan results, there were anomalies and she was suggested for referral to a gynaecologist. She was told that, on an NHS waiting list, she would have to wait another year and a half. Frightened, Sarah and her family felt that she could not wait that long and she went private, paying for it herself. That led to the discovery of cancerous lesions, which were operated on last month, and Sarah is now recovering at home.”
“It would not be appropriate for me to comment on that specific case, but I am already engaging with the justice secretary on some of the substantive issues, particularly in relation to the recent press reports that we have seen regarding knife crime. There is a real need for us to take a joined-up approach to education and justice. Two weeks ago, the First Minister spoke about our work on the mentors in violence prevention. That work is happening in our schools today, and it is good work, but there is more that we can do on a cross-portfolio basis on the point that the member makes, which I support. Violence in Schools 4.”
“The cabinet secretary will be aware of the case of Carol Shaw, who was violently attacked by a pupil in her school. He lifted her up and threw her head first on to a concrete floor, endangering her life. Following the attack, he went to another teacher’s desk, put his foot up on the desk and said: “The stupid cow deserved it.” What does the cabinet secretary say about that horrifying attack? When she speaks about consequences, will she have a discussion with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs about how that individual escaped custody, despite the sheriff in the case saying that he could have received 18 months in custody? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Ross for raising that issue. I am of course aware of the case, which has received extensive coverage in the press.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will propose the scheduling of time for a parliamentary debate or statement on the works at Union bridge on the A96 in Keith, in light of reports that on-going delays have resulted in the trunk road being reduced to one lane with traffic lights for almost a year. (S6O-04741)”
“What you have just said now makes it clear that you were aware of requests back to last Thursday. In the chamber yesterday, you specifically said that you were not aware of any requests. It is important to you and to this entire Parliament that we give accurate statements to this chamber, so, on reflection, will you now correct the record from yesterday? The Presiding Officer: I do not regard an email to the chief executive, another office, which was mentioned to me in passing and in which I am mentioned in passing, as a specific request to meet me. My office has contacted your office today, Mr Ross, and I very much look forward to meeting you this evening. We will now move on to portfolio question time. Portfolio Question Time Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business Section 104 Orders (Scotland Act 1998) 1.”
“Last Thursday, I told the chief executive that I wished to meet Mr Findlay as a matter of priority, given the nature of events subsequent to my decision to ask you to leave the chamber. Requests to meet Mr Findlay were made on Thursday and again on Tuesday. Those were declined. Last Thursday, the chief executive told me that he had declined your request to meet him and, if possible, me, as he was aware that I was seeking to meet Mr Findlay. I therefore considered that matter closed. Your subsequent request to the chief executive’s office on Tuesday morning to meet me was dealt with by my office, as I was unavailable, due to long-standing parliamentary commitments, and I was not aware of that request. Douglas Ross: Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am grateful that you have agreed to meet me this evening. However, yesterday, you repeated the claim in the chamber that you had not been aware of any invitations to meet me. The chief executive of the Parliament has now confirmed that he had a discussion with you last Thursday about my first request to meet you, so, on reflection, do you agree with the chief executive that you had that discussion last Thursday, and are there opportunities for you to correct the record? The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross. That is not a point of order, but I will respond to it. I have, indeed, offered to meet you later today, and I look forward to that. I also intend to meet Mr Findlay.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. To follow up on what you have just said—that the chamber is not the place to make diary appointments—if you, as Presiding Officer, refuse to meet with me, where else can I make these points?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Rule 8.17 of the standing orders states that any member is allowed to “question whether proper procedures have been or are being followed by making a point of order.” Can I ask if you were in breach of our standing orders by not allowing me to make a point of order earlier today, under rule 8.17? Also, you made it clear to the Parliament that you had not received any requests from me to meet with you. Since then, I have been asked by multiple media outlets for evidence that I had requested to meet with you. [Interruption.] Sorry—I thought we were not allowed to heckle. [Laughter.]”
“Will the minister confirm that it was the SNP Scottish Government that called for the energy profits levy to be introduced? When does he think that it should have been removed? Alasdair Allan: As Douglas Ross is well aware, we supported the levy as a temporary measure. We do not support the increase in the levy to its current rate, and we do not support the fact that the UK Government appears to have put no end date on it.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In response to my earlier point of order, you said that you were not aware of any requests to meet me. Can I, therefore, get confirmation from you as to whether people in your office respond to invites to meet MSPs without consulting you before they decline them, or did you mislead Parliament? How would you correct the record?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Following your decision to remove me from the chamber last Thursday, I have made several requests to meet you to discuss that. So far, you have refused all requests. Therefore, in the absence of—”
“Now, for the past five years, she has been actively seeking permanent teaching roles in Highland, but none has been available to external applicants. Although I accept that that is a local authority issue, I would be interested in the cabinet secretary’s response to it. Is it right that Highland Council—and, I know, others—are excluding people who want to move to a part of Scotland where we need people to come and live and make their lives, because jobs are for internal applicants only? This is someone who has deep connections to the Highlands and who wants to raise her own family there, yet she is currently being excluded from pursuing her career in teaching in an area that she loves. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take that on board and respond. 15:27”
“We need a new strategy and the delivery of additional teacher numbers across Scotland, because our current teachers, who do outstanding work, are struggling under the pressure. I will finish with some comments from a local teacher from the Highlands who has contacted me. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take this away, or reference it in her closing remarks, because it is less partisan. This teacher tells me that she qualified as a primary teacher five years ago, having “pursued this career with the dream of bringing my skills back to the Highlands where I grew up and hope to raise my own family.” She chose to be placed anywhere in Scotland in her probationary year, hoping that that would increase her chances of securing a permanent role. She was not placed in Highland, so she did her probationary experience elsewhere.”
“I was reminded that it was just a year ago, when I used to sit on the Conservative front bench and put a number of questions to the First Minister, that I asked him four times whether he would commit to those 3,500 additional teachers over the course of this parliamentary session, and he refused to do so on each of those four occasions. John Swinney, who has more faces than a town clock, now seems to be saying to his Government, “We accept that we will not meet that commitment, but it is not our fault; it is someone else’s issue—and let us blame local government.” That is, sadly, the pattern that we see from this SNP Government. Earlier in the debate, the cabinet secretary said that she would listen. However, I hope that she does more than just that; I hope that we get some answers.”
“He cannot even fulfil a commitment that he made as education secretary, in a Government that he now leads. I do not remember an asterisk in the SNP manifesto saying, “Subject to the agreement of the local authority”. Nor do I remember the SNP saying, when asking people to vote for that commitment—a very appealing commitment to make—and for their local SNP candidate, “Please check with your local councillor whether they endorse this.” What we are getting now are excuses. At the time, it was a bold commitment. However, once again, it is one that this SNP Government has failed to deliver on.”
“What does the cabinet secretary seek to remove? She will remove “further notes the failure of the Scottish Government to make sufficient progress on its 2021 commitment to recruit 3,500 more teachers”. Does the cabinet secretary not believe that there has been a failure? Does she actually think that we will recruit 3,500 more teachers over the course of the remainder of this parliamentary session, to meet that target? I do not know—does Jenny Gilruth believe that? I do not think so. She has explained that it is all to do with local authorities and suchlike, but that was not the issue when her immediate-but-one predecessor made that commitment. The education secretary at that time who made the pledge and had it inserted into the SNP manifesto was one John Swinney. What has he gone on to do? Oh yeah—lead the Government!”
“I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for bringing this topic to the chamber, to allow us to have another education debate. I was thinking about the last education debate. There was no motion or amendment from the Government because the SNP agreed with everything that the Conservatives and other parties were saying. This time, there is a Government amendment, so it clearly wants to change something—and I have to wonder which party it has done a deal with to get it through at decision time tonight. I noticed that one party is not represented in the chamber; it will be interesting to see how its members vote this evening. I had a look to see what the cabinet secretary’s amendment will change in the motion. Will she add to it, as the other parties’ amendments would do? No—she is cutting bits out of it.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether NatureScot considers and respects the views of local people and businesses when considering applications to control seagulls. (S6O-04711)”
“Mr Gibson was rightly cited as being an effective convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and I can testify to that, having been a member of that committee under his convenership. I might be slightly misquoting Emma Roddick, but she suggested that ministers should be terrified to appear before committees. I am not quite sure that terror is necessarily the most conducive to some form of exchange. However, I recognise that exchanges should be robust and that ministers should be held to account for the work that we undertake.”
“I enjoyed Mr Carlaw’s selective rundown of unicameral institutions in his contribution, although he neglected to mention that Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland also have single- chamber legislatures. In such circumstances, I recognise that it is important that we have a strong committee system. I am here to be held to account by the Parliament, and it is enormously important that we have strong committees. Mr Leonard made the point that people are not elected to be robots. I have never thought of him as someone who is robotic or an automaton. I thought that Mr Mason was rather uncharitable in his assessment of the Public Audit Committee. As a former member of that committee, I can testify to the delight that I felt when I was tapped on the shoulder and asked to sit on it.”
“Drawing on my 18 years of experience as a parliamentarian, there is much that I could say, but I remind everyone that I speak in the debate on behalf of the Government. To pick up on Douglas Ross’s point, I observe that the very nature of the debate shows that we are well capable of being flexible and able to adapt the manner in which we work for a specific purpose. It is another example of how our processes do not need to be replicated in every single circumstance. There are circumstances, such as the committee’s inquiry, in which we can operate slightly differently. I want to talk about the purpose of committees in the context of the Parliament’s structure. As has been noted, we are a unicameral entity.”
“I look forward to continuing the debate with the committee. 16:49 Jamie Hepburn: I have enjoyed this debate as others have. Just like Emma Roddick, I did not need to be bullied to take part, although I think that I was required to do so. I appreciate that Jackson Carlaw’s memory does not go back to 1774, although I would suggest, rather uncharitably, that the memory of the person who cited it might go back to 1774. Mr Whitfield will not be able to duck my challenge and I look forward to another historical reference when we come to debate his committee’s report in due course. The debate has been a useful means for us to reflect on how committees have undertaken their business during the 26 years of the Parliament’s existence.”
“I do not have much time, but I want to finish with this point. My Scottish Conservative colleagues outlined a number of submissions to the committee. One that has not been talked about in the debate but which I am particularly keen on is for committee witnesses to declare any relevant interests, and I made that point to the committee. Scotland is a small country, and many of the people who give evidence to committees are almost professional witnesses—they come into the Parliament time after time to give their views, which are important, but many of them are supported by the Scottish Government. When those committee witnesses give that evidence, they should—for balance, because MSPs have to declare any financial interests—declare where their funding comes from. That would help our scrutiny and our deliberations.”
“I am not speaking as the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee—I am sure that some of my colleagues will be delighted about that—but I want to speak about some of my experiences on that committee. I will not lie to the Parliament and say that I am a non-partisan convener—I accept that I am extremely partisan. At times, that is important. When we have ministers in front of us, we are clearly going to ask party-political questions, and I do not think that we should try to deter members from doing that. It is important for ministers to be held to account during committee evidence sessions. Sometimes in the chamber—I have perhaps shown this—I get unhappy about not getting a direct answer from a minister, but it is far harder for ministers to avoid questions or subjects when members can come back at them in committee.”
“I think that we all agree that there has been a lack of that and that we need to get better in that regard. Emma Roddick said that committee appearances should not be easy or enjoyable for ministers, and I agree with that. I am not sure whether she is speaking from her experience as a former minister, but it is important that ministers are held to account. Stephen Kerr spoke about the workload balance, which is certainly an issue given that so much legislation is being considered in this part of the parliamentary session. Ash Regan made a point about the impact on smaller parties or independent members, and the Parliament might have to consider that in the next parliamentary session.”
“I put my point again: the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is convened by a Labour MSP, and, apart from the convener, all the members are female. If that measure were in place at the moment, the committee that is leading the debate would restrict the Scottish Labour Party to selecting a male convener, because the committee would be single-sex if the convener was female. Rhoda Grant: There are many committees on which there is only one woman, and there are some on which there are no women. That is an issue right here, right now, and it is not good. Douglas Ross: I agree, but I am trying to say that there will be challenges with what the committee and, perhaps, the Parliament will decide. Lorna Slater spoke about post-legislative scrutiny.”
“When we recalled the chief executive, she resigned a few days before she was due to appear again—I am sure that the two things were not in any way linked, but it is useful to sometimes get people from outside bodies in front of us. Audrey Nicoll made an excellent speech on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee. She rightly spoke about the relationship that the committee is building and the dialogue that it is creating with stakeholders, who are so important to the legislation that we pass. She spoke for every convener and committee member when she praised the work of the clerks, SPICe, PACT and the media teams, which I certainly agree with. Rhoda Grant gave an excellent response to my intervention on her, but, although I hear the calls against single-sex committees, there are dangers.”
“Two members of his committee—John Mason and Ross Greer—are on the education committee, which I convene. Those are substantial committees, but those members put a lot of work into the various committees that they sit on. Richard Leonard, speaking for the Public Audit Committee, made the good point that it hears less from ministers and more from accountable officers. Although I like having ministers in front of my committee, we have had very successful evidence sessions with accountable officers in their own sphere. For example, we had the chief executive and the chair of the Scottish Qualifications Authority in front of us.”
“I absolutely agree with both of those comments, but, if committees are not performing at their optimum level, they will not meet the aspirations that we had when the Parliament was reconvened in 1999 and which we have carried since then. Martin Whitfield started us off in the debate by speaking about this being a listening exercise. When I was told that I was speaking in the debate, I quickly went to find the committee’s report and found that it had not been published yet, but this might be the way to do things: having a chamber debate to hear members’ varied views before the committee comes to a conclusion. Kenny Gibson spoke about his committee, the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which has rightly been lauded by members across the Parliament, not just for Kenny Gibson’s convenership but for the work of every member on it.”
“In closing the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I want to pick up on a number of points that were made by earlier speakers. First, though, I note that the debate has brought self- reflection and navel gazing to a whole new level, as members have sat for a couple of hours speaking about how good or otherwise they are on committees. However, I add that I have enjoyed listening to the debate, which has been valuable. As both Jackson Carlaw and Foysol Choudhury mentioned, we have a unicameral Parliament. We were promised a committee process that would address any deficiencies caused by having such a system, but I am not convinced that we have that yet. Rona Mackay mentioned that committees should be the engine rooms of our Parliament, and Finlay Carson said that they were the cornerstone of our democracy.”
“When it scrutinised a bill, the committee might feel that the points that it had raised had not been fully taken into account. I see no inconsistency in a committee being able to participate in both aspects of the scrutiny process. I look forward to hearing what members across the chamber have to say. Again, I emphasise that it is not for the Government to dictate to Parliament on such matters but, of course, the Scottish Government is always ready, willing and happy to support such considerations in the appropriate way. 15:45”
“I do not think that there would be inconsistencies in a committee being able to inform the development of legislation that was subject to its scrutiny further down the line; committees should be perfectly capable of doing that. Martin Whitfield: The minister opens an interesting question about the contribution that a committee can make to a bill’s development, as opposed to its requirement to scrutinise a bill. Is he comfortable—I phrase that carefully—that a committee would be able to, in essence, contribute to what a bill should look like and subsequently scrutinise it successfully for parliamentary needs? Jamie Hepburn: In short, yes—that would be perfectly possible. It would still be in the Government’s hands to consider what the committee had said and draft its legislation accordingly.”
“Jamie Hepburn: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will touch on whether there is scope for committees to do more pre-legislative scrutiny in order to improve their knowledge earlier in the process and to front load some of their consideration of certain issues. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has looked at whether committees could front load some scrutiny while policy development is under way by engaging in consultations or discussing matters with lead ministers at an earlier stage and more regularly. That approach could ensure that less time was required to scrutinise the final product. Of course, it is in the hands of committees to determine how much time should be allocated to scrutiny when they have been involved at an earlier stage of the process.”
“Committees could deal with minor technical issues quickly, which would allow them to spend more time on issues that are significant, of high public interest or of longer-term impact. Of course, committees have to make those judgments for themselves. Over time, new processes and new information requirements have built up, which have increased committee workloads. At the Parliament’s request, the volume of information that the Government must submit to the Parliament has increased and, in turn, the volume of information that the Parliament must consider has also increased. We seek to respond to such requirements accordingly. [Interruption.] Am I getting an indication from the Deputy Presiding Officer that I must conclude? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for the interventions, with a bit of extra latitude.”
“We are cognisant of capacity issues and aware that some committees will have more capacity than others, and we try to balance that against the need to take forward the legislative programme that meets the Government’s ambitions. Often, legislation falls under more than one committee’s remit, and we try to balance activity with that in mind. In giving evidence to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee last week, I made the point frequently that it is not for the Government to dictate how a committee might scrutinise legislation or any particular issue. There may be a question of how a committee could scale its approach, depending on the significance of the issues.”
“The minister makes an interesting point about numbers. Does he agree that some subject committees receive more legislation than others? Indeed, we discussed that this morning during the meeting that he had with me as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Between now and the end of the parliamentary session, the committee will have very little capacity to consider anything other than legislation, given the number of non-Government bills and Government bills that are coming forward. Although the numbers may be the same, certain committees receive more legislation than others. Jamie Hepburn: I absolutely recognise that. The Government looks at the range of activity that committees are undertaking, as members can see clearly from the year 5 programme that we announced in our programme for government.”
“When an official handed them the motion, did they say, “This is going to look a bit embarrassing if we don’t even mention ferries”? No—they rubber-stamped it and allowed it to go. Frankly, it shows the ignorance of SNP ministers about islanders’ real, hard lives and the impact that ferry delays and the lack of ferries have on so many of our island communities. What do we get today? What is the response to our islands’ problems? It is another islands plan. I ask the cabinet secretary—I tried to intervene, but she would not take it—given all her engagement, does she really believe that islanders want another islands plan? No, they do not. If they were given the choice, they would want a bloody ferry. That is all that they are after and all they need.”
“Only in SNP Scotland can we have a debate, led by SNP ministers, on an SNP-drafted motion on empowering Scotland’s island communities that does not mention ferries once—there is not a single mention in the motion. I am sure that I cannot be the only one who counted how many words were in the motion, but if I am, I will explain to the chamber. The SNP motion has 109 words about empowering our island communities. In those 109 words, SNP members congratulate themselves and say how great the SNP is for the islands and islanders, but they do not mention ferries. It got me thinking: how could that motion even have been signed off by highly paid ministers? The two SNP members who are on the front bench today get a combined salary of £216,700, which is more than £215,000 a year.”
“The fund has supported 70 projects across 51 islands, including the provision of social care facilities on Tiree, a new nursery in Orkney, harbour facilities on Skye and a community hub on Eriskay. Earlier this month, I was delighted to write to local authorities to confirm that another £5.3 million has been allocated to the islands programme for the coming year. We know that the delivery of more affordable homes is important for islanders. Between April 2016 and March 2024, we delivered almost 1,300 affordable homes in island communities. Between 2023 and 2028, we are making up to £25 million available through the demand-led rural affordable homes for key workers fund, which is available to local authorities and registered social landlords to purchase existing homes, where there is an identified need.”
“Throughout these difficult times, we have worked with islanders to develop tangible measures to support their economies and wellbeing. For instance, since December 2022, our islands cost crisis emergency fund has helped local authorities to support vulnerable households that are exposed to cost of living pressures. The fund has already distributed £3.4 million, and I am pleased to confirm that a further £1 million will be distributed over the course of 2025 and into 2026. Much has also been delivered under the national islands plan. Through the islands programme, we have invested more than £15 million in capital for critical infrastructure, which has been used to address locally identified priorities and to fund community-led projects.”
“However, arbitrary decisions by Governments at Westminster have compounded the damages of Brexit and continue to cause lasting harm to our island communities. What we witnessed earlier this week is no different. Although the UK-EU summit represents positive momentum in rebuilding our relationship with the European Union, I am deeply disappointed by the UK Government’s lack of meaningful engagement in general and on fisheries in particular. Fisheries is a devolved area, and impacts on fisheries have a disproportionate impact on island jobs and communities. Despite being at the sharp end of Brexit and the other crises that I mentioned, island communities have shown remarkable resilience. However, the Scottish Government has not taken that for granted.”
“In the space of just a few years, we have encountered a formidable mix of challenges, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the on-going cost of living crisis, which have impacted our islands significantly. In implementing the plan, we have also had to navigate the detrimental impacts of an unwelcome Brexit. As members have regularly heard me say, Brexit has had profoundly negative consequences for Scotland’s rural and island areas. It has exacerbated labour shortages, created new barriers to trade and stemmed the flow of crucial European Union funding. In engaging with successive United Kingdom Governments, the Scottish Government has consistently championed the distinct needs of our rural and island communities.”
“The cabinet secretary is speaking about the due regard that ministers must give to island communities. Why, then, does her motion about empowering our island communities fail to mention ferries? Mairi Gougeon: We are talking about the national islands plan, and this is the opportunity for Parliament to feed into that. I will of course come on to transport, which is an integral part of getting to our islands. To deliver on another key provision of the 2018 act, Scotland’s first-ever national islands plan was published in December 2019. It was the result of extensive consultation with island communities, and it set out the strategic objectives that have since guided the Scottish Government’s policies and investments for islands.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential impact on businesses and residents in the Highlands should a visitor levy be introduced. (S6O-04677)”
“How good it is to see the entire ministerial team here today for this session. To ask the Scottish Government which of the portfolio questions taken in the chamber on 25 April 2025 raised matters that fall within the specific responsibilities of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, as listed on the Scottish Government website, in light of reported concerns about her missing the session for reasons not related to her ministerial duties. (S6O-04664)”
“When he gave the green light for these contracts, John Swinney hailed the absence of any banana skins. After the latest cost increase and delay, how would Kate Forbes rate John Swinney’s ability to spot banana skins? Kate Forbes: I am going to be very open about the challenges that those contracts have faced. I have previously apologised to communities and I will apologise again, because the additional delays are completely unacceptable, as are the budget increases.”
“It is over to the Government now to take the feeling in the chamber today and from across the political parties and finally get something done to deliver for young people and families across Scotland. 15:56”
“While Willie Rennie was on his feet— less than four minutes ago—the NHS board came back to me to say that it will meet the family to discuss the issue. It should not have taken MSPs threatening to raise the issue in Parliament, raising it with ministers and writing to the health board to get the response that this family and this young boy need and to ensure that he gets the support that is so clearly needed. What I want to see from today’s debate is consensus across the parties that we all accept that there is a problem; the SNP can show that by accepting the motion and the criticism within it. However, as others have said, we also need action. We cannot come back here in a few months or a few years’ time and say the same things and not deliver.”