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 20 of 22.
“That means supporting our farmers but also our fishermen and giving them areas to fish in to provide the quality produce for which our Scottish fishermen are rightly famed. I have worked on spatial squeeze for some time. When I was a member of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee held an inquiry on the issue and we published a report. Sadly, however, our report was not as full as it could be, because the cabinet secretary refused to attend the session. I know that SNP members were disappointed that she failed to attend. That reinforces the point that the Government needs to get behind the fishing industry and get involved in and engage with the sector.”
“Too many long-established fishing areas are being lost to provide opportunities to allocate fishing grounds to the renewables sector. We have to find a better way for the renewables industry to work with the fishing sector. I believe that the fishing sector has done an awful lot to accommodate what is happening in the seas and in our waters, but it is not being met halfway by industry, and in some cases by Government, which has left it feeling squeezed out of the fishing areas that provide us with the vital produce that we need. People speak about renewables and offshore energy being part of our energy security, but we have to treat food security as being as high a priority as energy security.”
“I hope that the cabinet secretary will take many things away from today’s debate and that we get a guarantee that there will be a full debate in Government time to allow the issue to be discussed in Parliament and across the parties, given that there are so many issues that we could focus on today. I will focus on an issue that was one of three that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation highlighted in its briefing for the debate. Spatial squeeze is an issue that the industry and the sector are acutely aware of and are particularly worried about with regard to their future. We hear talk about a just transition to renewables, and we all want to get behind that, but the industry feels that it is an unjust transition for the fishing industry.”
“The Government really needs to reflect on the fact that it has not held a debate on fishing for three years, which is also sadly indicative of that particular department of the Scottish Government. We should also be debating the rural affairs brief more in Parliament. Indeed, when there was outrage—correctly—from farmers across Scotland and the rest of the UK about the inheritance tax that was applied by the UK Labour Government, although the Scottish Government brought a debate on the subject to the chamber, it only did so a week after Tim Eagle had led a debate on the issue for the Scottish Conservatives. Again, Opposition parties had to use their debating time to get the Government to discuss the issue.”
“I, too, congratulate Beatrice Wishart on lodging the motion and on the way in which she opened the debate. I also associate myself with her remarks— and yours, Deputy Presiding Officer—to the family and friends of Dr Ian Napier, who I know was respected by members on all sides of the chamber and across the industry. I thank all the organisations that submitted briefings for the debate. The number of briefings that we received shows the interest that there is outside the chamber in influencing what MSPs say inside it. That supports the point that has been made by almost every speaker, which I reiterate yet again, that we should be debating the subject in Government time, not as an issue that is added on at the end of the day because a back-bench MSP has brought it to the chamber.”
“Could you advise what those opportunities are? You have refused them all. The Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, I have explained the situation quite clearly. I am not sitting here and explaining matters that you understand wholly and thoroughly. You are very well aware of the opportunities that exist for all members to raise this issue, and that is the case this week, as with any other.”
“I do not expect challenges to my authority when a member is not selected on a specific item of business, and, as Mr Ross pointed out, members have opportunities throughout the week to raise this issue. Douglas Ross: When? The Presiding Officer: Mr Ross! I ask you to stop speaking from your seat in that manner. You are an experienced member of this Parliament, and I am sure that you are wholly aware of the opportunities that are available to you. Douglas Ross: On that, I have a point of order. The Presiding Officer: Further to that point of order, Mr Ross, I have nothing else to add, so please do not repeat what you have said previously. Douglas Ross: Further to my previous point of order, Presiding Officer, you said that you offered members opportunities throughout the week to raise those questions.”
“The purpose of the question that I submitted on the issue this week, as both a topical question and a First Minister’s question, was to get advice and guidance for all national health service boards across Scotland, not just NHS Fife. Surely it is not right for constituents of all those health boards to have to wait until, potentially, after July for the employment tribunal to reconvene before they get the answers from Government ministers in this Parliament. The Presiding Officer: In line with long- standing convention and in common with my predecessors, I do not give reasons for selection decisions. I consider each question that is lodged carefully and in line with published criteria. Many important questions are submitted each week.”
“I know that it is frowned on for members to challenge the ruling of the chair, but given that Parliament has just taken the decision not to allow the Government to give a statement on the issue, and given that you, as Presiding Officer, will not select questions on the issue, when can the Scottish Parliament and members of the Parliament debate this important issue? Will you also advise whether there is an opportunity for Parliament to sit longer tonight? One of the three reasons that the SNP minister refused the Conservatives’ request for a statement was that Parliament is already sitting until 5.15 tonight. Is it really the Parliament’s decision that we cannot sit until, perhaps, 6 o’clock to debate the issue and get a response from ministers? Will you also give advice on the sub judice point?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Parliament has just decided—we assume with the votes of Scottish National Party and Green members—not to allow a statement on this crucial issue. [Interruption.] Parliament has just decided that—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Ross. Do continue. Douglas Ross: SNP members seem to think that this is funny. I think that it is serious that Parliament should be able to address an issue that is both topical and urgent. Presiding Officer, I use those words because topical, urgent and First Minister’s questions on this matter have been submitted to you, of which none were selected.”
“She said: “I’ll always remember one mum saying ‘you’re the midwife no-one wants to meet but I’m really glad I did.’” That shows that in their darkest moments—the immediate moment of a miscarriage or stillbirth—a mum-to-be and a family are getting support and care from specialist midwives, care that can continue for months and years. It is therefore right that we recognise the incredible work of our NHS staff in that respect. 16:32”
“We will need to tease out how the report’s recommendations will affect people across Scotland; it might contain 34 recommendations or key actions, but rural and island services are not mentioned in any of them. We know that we will have to do something slightly different, as Beatrice Wishart said in her excellent speech. The circumstances in our island communities are very different from those in our urban communities, and we have to recognise that. It is right that, every time, we focus on the women and families who are affected by the issue, but, as members have done and will continue to do, we should also praise the staff for the incredible work that they do in such difficult circumstances. I read a comment from Marcia Dean, who was a bereavement midwife at Dr Gray’s hospital a couple of years ago.”
“I will not rehearse the comments that have been made about the late notice that we got of the report—it means that I have not read all 53 pages—but after doing a search of the document, I note that rural and island services are mentioned in only one paragraph in those 53 pages. That paragraph states: “The model of care within rural and island services will be different”. However, we all know that. I hope that, in the meeting that the minister has offered to the Parliament, there will be a discussion about this. After all, she represents rural and island communities in her constituency; the cabinet secretary has talked repeatedly about his own experience in Orkney; and I am thinking, too, of their fellow minister, Maree Todd. They all represent rural and island areas.”
“Ms Mackay made the point that some people say, “At least it happened early.” That is partly the fault of men; I know that men do not speak about their own health very much, and certainly not about their wife’s or partner’s health. Sometimes they think that such comments can be helpful, but, because we have not broken down the stigma, they have not shared their experience with others, and they just add to the pain and suffering of their loved ones when they are simply trying to help. Brian Whittle suggested that I would mention rural healthcare, and I will do so, because the issue affects women in every part of the country, as well as their families.”
“Fulton MacGregor was right to say that it is difficult to get precise numbers on this, but I remember reading a document a couple of years ago that said that NHS Grampian believes that each year it helps 15 to 20 women who are going through a stillbirth, 50 to 60 women who are experiencing loss after 13 weeks but before 24 weeks, and approximately 1,000 women who are going through a miscarriage. Given that we are talking about a rural area that is not as densely populated as other health board areas in this country, it means that a significant number of women and families are experiencing this on an annual basis. As we are seeing those numbers every year, it is right that we take time in our Parliament to discuss such important issues. Gillian Mackay, and others, were right to talk about stigma.”
“This has been a good, constructive and important debate. I want to echo the way in which the minister and other speakers opened their speeches and send my condolences and sympathies to every family who has gone through a miscarriage, and give my thanks to people like Louise and Craig Caldwell who, in moments of adversity, deal with their own trauma but want to improve things for others, too. It is great that Louise and Craig are able to join us in the gallery. My health board area, NHS Grampian, took part in the national bereavement care pathway pilot, and a lot of work is being done at our local hospital, Dr Gray’s, which I will talk about in a moment.”
“Although elements of the graded approach to miscarriage, as recommended by The Lancet’s report, can be accessed in 13 out of 14 boards, none consistently deliver all elements, in particular after the first or second miscarriage.”
“Although the “Miscarriage Care and Facilities in Scotland: Scoping Report National Overview” sets out that all NHS boards have “dedicated facilities for women experiencing unexpected pregnancy complications” and “services available for women experiencing miscarriage”, there is variation in how those services are delivered. For example, 10 boards have a dedicated early pregnancy unit, with the rest delivering early pregnancy services through existing services. Eleven boards have a separate room, ward or area away from the labour ward for women experiencing miscarriage. Boards without a separate space are aware that that must be addressed as a priority and are working on providing that space.”
“I am offering to have a meeting, at some point after the debate, with members who are interested in learning more about the issue. I thank him for his intervention, which allowed me to say that. Although the framework focuses on miscarriage care in the first trimester, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the women and families who go through baby loss and stillbirth at later stages. It is vital that they receive excellent care and support at such an incredibly difficult time, and I know that improvements continue to be made by NHS boards and through the stillbirth national bereavement care pathway. In developing the framework, we carried out a scoping exercise across all NHS boards into the availability of services for miscarriage and unexpected pregnancy complications.”
“I did not want to interrupt the minister while she was explaining those important documents. The delivery framework is 54 pages long and the national progesterone pathway is 13 pages long. Was there any reason why the Government could not have shared those documents with members in advance of the debate? An hour is not enough time for us to scrutinise them. Clearly, the Government was aware of them on Tuesday, when it lodged its motion for the debate. No one has tried to amend the motion, because this will be a consensual debate, but it would have helped us to have a good debate if Opposition members had had the same insight as the Government. Jenni Minto: I understand where Douglas Ross is coming from. What is important is that this is the start of a process. I will go on to talk more about the framework and its importance to Scotland.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the petition, reportedly signed by hundreds of Keith residents and businesses, regarding the disruption caused on the A96 by the on-going works at Union bridge, including the calls for businesses to be compensated for any significant losses during these works. (S6O- 04312)”
“The committee will continue questioning the Government on many issues that it has heard about during its deliberations, but we welcome the support that we have had from committee members and from the cabinet secretary, the minister and their officials. Given the financial challenges that universities and colleges are facing, we hope that we can continue to look at those and find some solutions for these important sectors. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Colin Smyth to speak on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. 15:35”
“In its final allocations for universities in 2024-25, the SFC noted that, across all institutions, there was a 3.6 per cent reduction in teaching funding and a 4.2 per cent increase in research and innovation funding, that upskilling funding that had been worth £7 million in 2023-24 was being removed, and that digital poverty funding that had been worth £1.6 million in 2023-24 was being removed. The higher education resource budget for 2025- 26 has been set at £774 million, which represents a 1.7 per cent cash increase compared to 2024-25 but a 0.68 per cent decrease in real terms. The higher education budget has increased from £357 million in 2024-25 to £368 million, a rise of 3.2 per cent in cash terms but, in real terms, a 0.9 per cent decrease.”
“In her letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government announced £3.5 million for the creation of an offshore wind skills programme and a college care skills programme, as well as the provision of £700,000 to support the continuation of Corseford College. It would be helpful if we could be provided with more information about those funds and how they will be allocated. I now turn to the university sector. The university resource budget for 2024-25 was £760.7 million, which was a decrease from £789.2 million in 2023- 24. The capital budget increased from £340.7 million in 2023-24 to £356.9 million in 2024-25.”
“In our pre-budget letter to the minister and the cabinet secretary, we reiterated our call for as many financial and operational flexibilities as possible to be made available to improve colleges’ ability to deliver, but we acknowledged that such flexibilities alone will not address the financial issues that they face. In his response to the committee, the minister stated that the SFC plans to revamp the college funding model for future sustainability, and when he gave evidence to the committee earlier this month, he highlighted the work that is under way to support colleges to grow their commercial income so that they can become less dependent on public sources. The committee is keen to hear more about the SFC’s plans, as well as what support for colleges could look like.”
“The director of the Fraser of Allander Institute, Mairi Spowage, warned that cutting the funding for colleges was likely to affect the generation in the economy of long-term productivity benefits from upskilling the population; the economic activity that is generated by the goods and services that are bought by colleges; and the contribution that colleges make to the goals that are set out in the Scottish Government’s national strategy for economic transformation. Colleges are classified as public bodies. As such, they must balance their budgets every year, and they are restricted in the scope that they have to build up financial reserves. Their classification as public bodies also means that they are largely reliant on public funds—78 per cent of their income comes from the SFC grant.”
“In June, the Scottish Funding Council told the committee that four colleges were experiencing significant cash-flow issues and that the SFC was supporting recovery plans, which included options such as rescheduling grants, funding voluntary exit schemes and deferring loan repayments. In the 2025-26 budget, the resource budget for colleges has remained largely static. It has increased in cash terms by £13 million, but, according to SPICe’s budget day calculations, that represents a decrease of 0.33 per cent in real terms. The capital budget has decreased in cash terms by £20 million, to £65 million.”
“Although the net capital budget for colleges increased from £82.4 million to £84.9 million, that was set against the existence of a considerable maintenance backlog at Scottish colleges. In its 2022 report on Scotland’s colleges, Audit Scotland identified a £321 million shortfall in funding for lifestyle and backlog maintenance. In its 2023 report, it stated that the £4.7 million fund that was available in 2023-24 from the Scottish Funding Council for urgent repairs was in high demand—bids with a total value of £20 million were received from the sector for that £4.7 million fund. In its 2024 report, Audit Scotland said that the financial health of the sector had deteriorated and that there had been a 17 per cent real-terms reduction in resource funding since 2021-22.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. For our budget scrutiny, we focused on the long-term sustainability of funding for colleges and universities. First, I turn to the college sector, which has been a considerable focus for the committee throughout this session. We have repeatedly raised concerns about the extent and impact of the financial challenges that our colleges face. In gathering evidence ahead of this year’s budget, the committee heard more about the on- going pressures on colleges. Following flat cash settlements in 2021-22 and 2022-23, the resource budget decreased from £675.7 million to £643 million between 2023-24 and 2024-25.”
“I do not know why he will not take the opportunity today to set the record straight.”
“He needs to ensure that he has the trust of the Parliament and of health professionals outwith it, but he has still not been straight on the issue of what he knew about his misleading of the Parliament and his correction of the record. Can the cabinet secretary now answer the question that John Swinney avoided last Thursday and that Jamie Hepburn avoided last Wednesday? When did Neil Gray know of the responses to the freedom of information request that showed that there were no minutes of the meetings—minutes that he said did exist? When was he made aware of that? That was the point when he became aware that he had misled Parliament. Would Neil Gray like to set the record straight on that point today? Mr Gray will not. He stares straight ahead. At some point, Mr Gray will have to answer those questions.”
“Neil Gray is shaking his head, but that is what the minister said to the committee scrutinising the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. Even the minister in charge of the bill was struggling to get her head around it, yet, £30 million later and a lot of money down the drain, the bill was finally dropped. There were so many warning signs. If the Government had not been so determined to forge ahead with its views and had instead listened to Parliament, to COSLA and to others, we would have been in a better situation. In the final minute of my speech, I must address a point on which I have tried to get answers. The cabinet secretary’s future revolves around trust.”
“They contact their representative and then find out what information that representative has got from the health board: a further five-year wait to be seen at that clinic. How can that happen? As I said, such cases are unacceptable and indefensible. On the national care service, the Conservative amendment is right to examine the shambolic nature of the attempted passage of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament. I was reminded about it earlier, and I have raised this point before, but it was in May 2023 that Maree Todd told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee: “it has been a little hard for me to get my head around”— [Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 9 May 2023; c 12.] the issues of the national care service.”
“This is a constituent I met in Elgin who, by the stage that she spoke to me, had already suffered significantly. She struggles to sleep, because she has issues with sleep apnoea. She went to her GP, and she has been referred to the sleep apnoea clinic in Aberdeen. From the health board, we again get an apology. It accepts that things are not good enough. She was referred by her GP on 2 June 2023, which is now well over 18 months ago. Her letter from NHS Grampian told her that “The current waiting time”— for what is a routine appointment— “is over 5 years.” People go to their GP, in Scotland, to be told that their issue means that they need to be seen by a specialist, only to wait 18 months and not know anything.”
“However, please be assured that her treatment and care is the utmost priority for the Scottish Government ... I fully expect NHS Grampian to schedule your constituent’s appointment as soon as possible.” My constituent was told, following her GP referral, to see a gynaecologist, and the waiting time is two years and seven months. Is that really as quickly or as soon as possible? Does the cabinet secretary honestly believe that my constituent could read his letter and think that her treatment was of “the utmost priority for the Scottish Government” and for NHS Grampian if she has to wait for two years and seven months to see a gynaecologist? I move on to another case that I have written about—and I have had a response, so far, from NHS Grampian.”
“Many members have spoken about individual constituency cases today, and I want to add to their number, because the shocking waiting times are simply that—they are shocking, they are unacceptable and they are indefensible. One issue that I wrote to the cabinet secretary about earlier this year—I got a response to it on Monday— concerns a constituent who came to speak to me about her referral from her GP to see a gynaecologist. She phoned up the department in NHS Grampian to get her appointment, and she was told the waiting time—I will come on to that. I got a lengthy, three-page letter from the cabinet secretary, which starts off with an apology. He accepts that things are not good enough. He finishes his letter by saying: “I understand that she”— my constituent— “will naturally be concerned by the delay.”
“I know that we have statements and questions but, yet again, on the crucial issues for our constituents, it is Opposition parties that use their debating time to hold the Government to account. Neil Gray: Does Douglas Ross recognise that we debated the investment that we are making in public services just yesterday? Douglas Ross: The SNP loves to have those general debates, but this is a very specific debate about waiting times in our NHS and the crisis in our NHS and social care. The SNP likes general debates because it can pick and choose the bits that it can defend best. The SNP’s record is on show here, and it does not make for pretty reading. Christine Grahame: [Made a request to intervene.] Douglas Ross: I would give way, but I have only six minutes.”
“I welcome the fact that Labour has brought this debate to the chamber—it is important that we discuss the NHS and lengthy waiting times—just as I welcome the fact that the Scottish Conservatives used their debating time last week on education and rising violence in our schools. It is telling that it is Opposition parties that bring those issues to the chamber. When Christine Grahame spoke about context, I thought that one context that she missed was one that we do not discuss enough—the SNP’s record in government over the past 18 years. The reason why these debates always come from Opposition parties is because the SNP does not want to or cannot defend its record. This is a vital issue.”
“Siobhian Brown: I appreciate all the work of police dogs and the importance of their welfare. I will write to Douglas Ross on specific details of the insurance of police dogs. Health and Social Care Workforce”
“I remind members that my wife is a sergeant in Police Scotland. One area in which communities can access justice is through the incredible work of our highly trained and skilled police dogs, of which there are 150 in Scotland. The minister will be aware of the shocking story at the weekend of police dog Zara, who was put down rather than the force paying veterinary bills of £12,000. Will the minister explain why police dogs are not routinely insured in Scotland? Does she agree with Dave Wardell, the dog handler of police dog Finn and an author and campaigner, who said: “These dogs are amazing. They’ve given up their lives for service. The difference they make to policing is incredible ... This needs looking into. Poor PD Zara could and should still be alive.” Has the minister raised that shocking situation with Police Scotland?”
“I understand the strength of feeling about the case, and I have been quite clear that I am not necessarily satisfied with all the details of the case. I am more than happy to go away and look into what urgent action can be taken over and above what I have already laid out in relation to the case and to keep members updated on that. The Presiding Officer: Thank you. That concludes the urgent question. I will allow a moment or two for front-bench members to organise themselves for the next item of business. Investing in Public Services Through the Scottish Budget”
“Ash Regan, Sharon Dowey and Pauline McNeill have all rightly asked for urgent action. I have listened carefully to the minister’s responses and have heard nothing urgent about them. We have an independent review that does not have a chair, and we do not know when it will report. Can the minister reassure members in the chamber and people who are watching that the Government is considering the issue urgently? What discussions have there been at Cabinet about it, given that it impacts on every child right across Scotland? Natalie Don-Innes: I am aware that the issue was discussed at Cabinet this morning. I do not attend Cabinet regularly, so I cannot provide any details, but I am aware that it was discussed.”
“Stephen Kerr mentioned the freedom of information request that was responded to on 13 December. Can the minister tell us whether Neil Gray was made aware of the initial request when it came in, the response that was going out and the Scottish Government comment that went to a Sunday paper about that request? If that all happened around 13 December, he has sat on that information for well over a month before correcting the parliamentary record. Jamie Hepburn: I go back to my initial answer. On being made aware of the inaccuracies yesterday, when the points of order were made, Mr Gray came back at the earliest opportunity to accept that fact and apologise to the chamber. Business Motion 17:17”
“By supporting commonsense Scottish Conservative policies, we can improve the opportunities for our children, let them be children and give them the chance to thrive in Scotland, as we would all like them to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Electricity Infrastructure Consenting”
“I thought that the seats behind the cabinet secretary would be fuller, given how crucial that subject is. Miles Briggs’s motion is so wide ranging because there are so many issues that we need to focus on in our education system. We were told that education would be the SNP Government’s number 1 priority, but I have never seen evidence of that. Not once in the SNP’s 18 years in government has education truly been the number 1 priority, and that is why our young people are suffering and why our teachers and support staff are struggling as well. I want to give the final word to Roz McCall, who gave an excellent speech. She finished by saying that it is crucial that we “let children be children”. As a parent and a politician, I could not agree more.”
“The Government’s approach is not working. [Interruption.] I am not sure what the minister’s hand gestures mean, but the issue is not being dealt with properly. We are not getting to the core of the problem, and another task force is not going to do it. We have not had much time in this debate, as has been mentioned. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary will hold a debate on the subject in Government time, but we have asked for that before now. Yet again, we are having a Conservative-led Opposition day debate in which we are raising education issues. However, we will listen and we will contribute to the debate that the cabinet secretary holds, because the issue of a safe school environment is hugely important to people up and down the country.”
“It is not in relation to violence in schools. I advised Parliament that the cabinet secretary would speak about the actions for schools. The setting up of that task force is a really positive move. Anything that will help to protect our children and young people from online harms should be welcomed. Douglas Ross: It is welcome, but the answer to my question is 302. That is the number of task forces, working groups and advisory groups that have been set up by the SNP Government, and that number is now to increase to 303. That is what the SNP reaches for every time there is a problem. It thinks that the problem can be solved by setting up another task force to listen more and do more, but it will not take action. In the debate, we heard the figures on the shocking rise in assaults on teachers and fellow pupils.”
“If the minister and the cabinet secretary think that, in staff rooms up and down the country, teachers will be celebrating and punching the air because the Government has announced another task force, they are completely wrong. Natalie Don-Innes: Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I will give way to the minister in a moment. I will give way if she can answer this question. She said that she has been instructed to announce the commencement of a task force. Does she or the education secretary know how many task forces, advisory groups and working groups are currently listed on the Scottish Government’s website? Natalie Don-Innes: I do not know whether the member and the rest of the Conservatives were listening to me. The task force is in relation to protecting children from online harm and abuse.”
“In 2020-21, the figure for secondary schools in Moray was one. I strongly believe that that was one too many, but the figure went up to five and then six. In 2023-24, the number of physical assaults with a weapon that were recorded in Moray went into double figures— it was 11. We are talking about cases in which weapons have been taken into our schools and used against pupils, staff and others. We must get a grip on that. That brings me to the Government’s response today. The minister was not very happy when she heard groans from Conservative members when she mentioned a task force. I am sorry, but that is the reaction.”
“In my area of Moray, we did a freedom of information request, and the figures on the increase in physical and verbal assaults on staff are shocking. In primary schools, the number of physical and verbal assaults has trebled in the past four years. In secondary schools, there were seven and a half times more physical and verbal assaults last year than there were four years previously. In 2020-21, there were just under 700 physical and verbal assaults in Moray primary schools. In 2023-24, the figure was almost 2,500. That huge increase raises questions about what is happening in our schools and about the guidance that the Scottish Government has put out. It is clear that the situation is not getting any better but is getting worse. Of particular concern is the number of physical assaults using a weapon.”