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 6 of 22.
“Although I would have liked to stick with the UNCRC, because we have not had answers today, there are other issues that I want to cover. I am sorry to move on to another negative issue, but it is one of the legitimate points that the committee raised in our report. We were struck by the fact that many key stakeholders felt that they had not been fully engaged in the development of the bill and that its provisions were, in their words, the poorer for it. Representing the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers Scotland, Jim Savege told the committee that it was “relatively unusual not to have had some joint working or collaboration on the development of a bill”. John Trainer of Social Work Scotland suggested that the bill “would have been vastly improved if that had happened”.”
“If the bill is not changed at stage 3, the Parliament will be passing legislation—on a key area that is important across the political spectrum—that is not compatible with the 2024 act. That is not acceptable to me, and nor is it acceptable to the witnesses who came to the committee. We were told that it would not be acceptable to the Government, but it turns out that it is. On the point about the cluttered landscape, the minister has announced the new independent review, which will explore parts of the complex legislative framework that relates to care- experienced children, young people and adults and how they could be simplified in the future. In giving evidence on the bill, stakeholders told us clearly that the matter requires urgent attention. I look forward to hearing the conclusions of Professor Norrie and CELCIS in due course.”
“I hear what is being said about the scattered and cluttered landscape and also the issue with the UNCRC, which are relevant concerns. However, in my opening speech, I set out that bringing the two provisions within the scope of the 2024 act on a piecemeal basis would quickly lead to a further scattering of the landscape and an increase in complexity. Through the review and the children’s rights scheme, I have set out actions to address those matters. Does Mr Ross agree that there has been progress? Douglas Ross: No—that is not progress. At the very latest, we will have to pass the bill by April. The Norrie review will not have fed back by then, and nor will the review of UK legislation that the minister spoke about be available in 2026.”
“Douglas Ross: The minister is shaking her head and saying that it is not. I will give way to her in a moment, but she told us at committee that we could look at the issue in 2026 and conduct a review of UK legislation. She said that when I raised the issue with her at committee last week, and she said it again just now. I will come on to the Norrie review in a minute, but that is not the answer to this point; the answer will be in amendments that are lodged at stage 3. The Government will either have to accept those amendments, come up with them itself or admit to the Parliament that it will not do what Jenny Gilruth and other ministers said that it would do, which is to produce legislation that is compatible with the 2024 act. Natalie Don-Innes: The conversation has moved on from what I said in committee.”
“Given that legislation is still coming forward that is incompatible, where is that commitment and that promise? Martin Whitfield: Is it not also the case that the promise to bring forward legislation within the scope of the UNCRC duty was a significant factor in the chamber agreeing to the decisions that had to be taken because of the challenges with the drafting? Douglas Ross: Absolutely. That was a key part, and it is the reason why we got that commitment from the cabinet secretary. That is why I am troubled that the Scottish Government has not responded positively to the committee urging it to explore how it might seek to ensure that the outlying provisions in the bill become compatible. What we have heard from the minister today is exactly what we heard from her last week and at stage 1. Natalie Don-Innes: It is not.”
“The committee heard concerns from stakeholders that the provisions in the bill on aftercare and the register of foster carers fall outside the scope of the UNCRC duty. That is because the bill amends the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which predates devolution and is therefore not covered by the compatibility duty under the 2024 act. Stakeholders including the Law Society of Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and The Promise Scotland have all raised concerns that the current drafting of the bill means that children and young people do not have justiciable rights under those provisions. That runs completely contrary to the commitment that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills gave in November 2023 to ensure that future legislation would fall within the scope of what became the 2024 act.”
“As we have heard, the bill introduces a wide range of changes that relate to aftercare, advocacy, corporate parenting, profit in residential care, foster care, children’s services planning and the children’s hearings system. Given the limited time, I will not be able to look at all those areas in detail, but I am sure that many of them will be covered in the debate. I begin with an issue that came up repeatedly in our evidence sessions. I challenged the minister on this point when we scrutinised the bill at stage 1, I challenged the minister and the cabinet secretary last week and I tried to intervene on the minister earlier. I feel that we are in “Groundhog Day”, because we are no further forward. We need to address the issue of compatibility with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
“As convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I am pleased to speak about the committee’s scrutiny of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I place on record my thanks, and the committee’s thanks, to everyone who contributed their views and shared their experiences with us. In particular, I make special mention of the care-experienced children, young people and adults from Who Cares? Scotland who took the time to meet the committee in October last year. My thanks also go to colleagues on the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. 15:46”
“That groundbreaking approach is as relevant to the work of national Government, local authorities and voluntary organisations now as it was 20 years ago, and it underpins the bill and our wider work to keep the Promise. We need to get it right for those children who need our support the most. The bill does not fulfil all our aspirations in that regard—no piece of legislation ever could—but it is more than a good start. I will continue to listen, engage and reflect, including on what members say in the debate today. However, I hope that members across the chamber can come together to agree to the bill at stage 1. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill.”
“I remain wholly committed to building on the work of the hearings system working group, under the leadership of Sheriff Mackie, and the on-going efforts of the children’s hearings redesign board. In part 2 of the bill, we seek to extend the legislative requirement to be involved in children’s services planning to the integration joint boards. That will emphasise the importance of holistic, whole-family support by strengthening the relationship between children’s and adult services to plan for appropriate support for children as they transition into adulthood, which is particularly important for children who leave care and for disabled children. This year, we will mark 20 years of getting it right for every child.”
“The bill also seeks to transform key elements of the children’s hearings system—that uniquely Scottish approach, which we are all so proud of, that involves taking a community-based approach to supporting children who need support the most—so that it is fit for the demands that the 21st century is making of it. Crucially, the objective is to reinstate some of the system’s founding principles by trying to make it more streamlined and child centred. I know that, in its stage 1 report, the Education, Children and Young People Committee set out some robust views on whether our measures in chapter 3 of part 1 of the bill will succeed in that aim, and I am considering what more we might do in that regard to address those concerns.”
“I reassure members that I am listening to and carefully considering all those asks and more, so that the bill that we pass before the parliamentary session ends is the best that it can be, given the time that we have to improve it and the resources that we have to deliver it. However, the bill has ambition. It will make a huge difference to the lives of children and young people now and in the future. Through the bill, we are expanding the right to aftercare to more young people, giving every child in care the right to advocacy and ensuring that that right is a lifelong one, limiting the ability to profit from providing care, and requiring private foster agencies to be registered as charities in order to operate in Scotland.”
“I recognise that many people have called for the bill to do more for kinship carers, who do so much for increasing numbers of children, often with minimal amounts of support; for babies and very young children, whose voices are often impossible to hear or easiest to ignore; and for children who need their care to continue beyond their 18th birthday so that they have rights to expect that and do not find themselves on their own in young adulthood. People have also called for family decision making to be an entitlement, which could be a key intervention in preventing more children from moving into care or at least in allowing them to maintain contact with their families.”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Natalie Don-Innes: I have to make progress. We are working with the UK Government on the best way to proceed. As I said, if progress has not been made by November 2026, we will review pre- devolution UK acts in devolved areas. However, I do not want to wait for that process to conclude before making progress on legislating so that, when people leave care, they have a legal entitlement to aftercare, with that being planned for before they reach 16. I also want us to do more to recruit and retain more foster carers, and I want more children to benefit from foster care. That is why we are legislating to create a new national register of foster carers.”
“In terms of the work and the pressures on the fiscal position, I have set out that, in relation to the Inverness to Nairn aspects, we would expect advance construction early on. Construction work and procurement will certainly take place in the next spending review, and we would see construction of those two parts during the next spending review. At the same time, we will be working on progress improvements eastwards, including on the Elgin bypass. Steps in taking forward an Elgin bypass will include further route development.”
“I realise that the statement is about the A9, but the cabinet secretary herself has mentioned the A96 in her answers. Given that those two roads are very much linked and that many people who travel up the A9 go on to the A96, if we are supposed to believe the earlier correction to the record that the SNP is still committed to dualling the A96 in full, will the cabinet secretary tell us when that will happen? Fiona Hyslop: Inshes to Smithton is clearly an important part of the A9 and the connection to the A96. That is where the budget has provided for early advance works to take place, similarly to the Nairn bypass. We will need to look at the procurement method, which would determine which phases of the A9 can be developed and when. However, our commitment to the full dualling of the A96 is unwavering.”
“They have all failed, and they have let down the north-east. Had it not been for today’s front page of The Press and Journal, we might still be in the dark. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Mr Ross for his contribution. That, too, is not a point of order. I have nothing to add to my response to Mr Ewing. I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Shona Robison, to make a point of order.”
“Are we supposed to believe, and will the cabinet secretary confirm in responding to these points of order, that despite having read and practised her statement a number of times, not a single MSP, special adviser or minister said to her, “Hold on, cabinet secretary, you are changing our pledge to dual the whole road by saying that you will dual only key parts of it”? Can the cabinet secretary also confirm which ministers have failed most here? Is it the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government herself, given that the supporting documents come out in her name? Is it the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, who is sitting next to her and who did not look at the elements of the statement that related to her brief, or does it go right up to the First Minister, as we know that the budget was his budget?”
“Fastest finger first, it seems, Presiding Officer. This is an extremely important issue, and I am pleased to be able raise my point of order before the cabinet secretary, who I see is ready to read out a pre-prepared script. This has been a monumental failure by the Government. The pledge and commitment are ones that it has apparently held for a decade and a half, and we are supposed to believe that nobody noticed—not a single person realised— that the Government had omitted to include the dualling of the A96 in its budget document. Worse still are the words that were used by the cabinet secretary in the budget statement yesterday—a statement prepared and read out exactly by the cabinet secretary.”
“I would like increased resources for dieticians and others to ensure that families feel supported. If any of us had to go through what the families in the public gallery and those watching at home have had to go through, we would want as much support as close to home as possible. Those living with PKU and their families deserve that, and they deserve it now. 17:42”
“Like me, the minister represents a rural and remote area. My constituents in Inverness have a link to Raigmore hospital, but the dieticians who deal with PKU in Raigmore stopped face-to-face discussions with individuals and families in 2020, and those have never been restarted. I am interested in hearing from the minister whether she feels that that is acceptable, because the family that I have mentioned have a daughter who is five and who has never seen her dietician face to face. All the discussions and debate that the dietician and the family need to have are done online, and all the information is provided online. There is a place for online consultations, but that should not be the only route. I would like to see advancements in the drugs that are available. Those drugs will be different for each individual.”
“I had no idea that that was what people had to deal with on a daily basis. I spoke to some people who control their PKU through taking supplements, and they tried to describe to me the awful taste of them. Imagine having to take that severely unpleasant supplement because of the condition. There is clearly a need for medical advancement. We have had that through a number of drugs, some of which have been mentioned. However, one of the drugs that have recently been introduced, which Rona Mackay spoke about, is not suitable for my constituent’s daughter, who has a gene that means that the drug does not work for her. We need further advancements on drugs. I want to mention the dietetics team—the dieticians—and the resources there. There is clearly a lack of resources across the country.”
“I, too, found it difficult to try to work out in my head how we would have managed as a family if one of our children had been diagnosed with PKU, and I find it difficult to see how people manage it on an on-going basis. The reception that Fulton MacGregor hosted in the Parliament in December, which my constituent came down to attend, was excellent, for two reasons. One reason was that we heard direct examples from people who either live with the condition or look after people with PKU, particularly younger children. The second reason was that the table in front of us—I think that it was in committee room 3—had packets of the supplement, which I will come on to in a moment, but also tiny Tupperware boxes containing the amounts of bread, pasta and rice that can be eaten. We could almost count the grains of rice in that box.”
“I am almost certain, with Alistair at Dr Gray’s hospital and James at Aberdeen royal infirmary, that I would have asked the doctor and the nurse what that test was for. However, because there was never any follow-up, it must have gone completely out of my mind. My constituent, in the case that I will discuss tonight, had a similar experience. Her daughter is now five. Her son and then her daughter had the test, and she got a phone call a couple of weeks later to say, “We need to discuss this heel-prick test.” She almost broke down—she thought, “This can’t be good.” The family then had to learn more about PKU, but because it is a rare disease, that was difficult.”
“I, too, congratulate Fulton MacGregor on securing the debate and welcome representatives of the NSPKU who are in the gallery listening to the debate. I also welcome those who are watching at home, because I have constituents in the Highlands who have not been able to make it to the Parliament tonight but who are keen to follow the debate. In a number of the briefings that we have had, and in some of the contributions from members, PKU has been described as a misunderstood disease. I think that it is worse than that. I completely agree with Rona Mackay; like her, I previously had no knowledge of the condition at all. However, while I say that, I am almost certain that it would have been mentioned to me at least twice in my life, when my boys were born, because the heel-prick test has been in place since 1969.”
“The business is saying that “A ratable value of £30,000 will unfortunately make the business completely unviable and will need to look at closing”. That is what is going to happen—in Government ministers’ constituencies, businesses will go bust. We are making a very simple plea: do not brush that off, Ivan McKee, as a laughing matter. Treat it seriously. We need answers and resolution, otherwise businesses will be unable to continue and will fold. That would be disastrous for Scotland’s economy. 16:39”
“What makes the situation even more concerning is that their rateable value, because of the circumstances in their business, was decided only last August. At the end of November, the rateable value increased by 170 per cent. However, their profits have not gone up by 170 per cent. Richard Lochhead, the Minister for Business and Employment, is sitting on the front bench. I am not sure whether he is responding to the debate today, but he is certainly present. He will have received many of the same emails that I have received, including one just two days ago, which I noticed he was copied into. It is from a small campsite in Moray. It already had a high rateable value of £11,000, but that is going up to £30,000.”
“Douglas Ross: There is a ruling from the chair, Mr McKee. Sit down. My time has been used up by a minister who had six and a half minutes to make those points. He has a summing-up speech to make those points. He also had an opportunity for weeks and, potentially, months to take the debate to the chamber, but he chose not to. When businesses are urging us to get answers from the Government, we will use our time to get them, because those businesses are making very strong representation to MSPs across Parliament. I want to tell the minister about some of the representations that I have received. Someone I met on the agritourism future farming programme told me in an email—which went to a number of colleagues—about their rateable value going from £3,300 to £9,000.”
“I was very clear about the fact that we are engaging extensively with businesses and business organisations on the issue. What is ridiculous— frankly, it is political point scoring—is members suggesting that the Government is not taking the issue seriously and is not doing work on it. We absolutely are. I have got the—[Interruption.] I will tell the member what I have been doing. I met the NDR consultative group on 22 November 2025—[Ivan McKee has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] Douglas Ross: Is this an intervention? Ivan McKee: I met the airport sector— The Deputy Presiding Officer: No, minister, you will have to use that material in your— Ivan McKee: —and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers on 17 December— The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross.”
“There is clearly an issue here, but we are having a debate and a vote on it now only because the Conservatives have used their debating time to bring it to the chamber. I must say that I was, frankly, appalled with the minister’s contribution, which, as Stephen Kerr said, was six and a half minutes of nothing—it was absolute waffle on an issue of such importance. What was even more galling was him sniggering, smirking and laughing when it was put to him that he had not addressed the points. Ivan McKee rose— Douglas Ross: I will give way in a second. How does he genuinely think that the businesses that are appealing to their representatives in this Parliament to raise the issue with the Government will feel when they become aware that the responsible minister considers it to be a laughing matter? Ivan McKee: It is not a laughing matter.”
“We are debating a crucial issue this afternoon, and I believe that every MSP from every part of the country, representing every political party, will have received concerning emails from businesses and constituents who are worried about the rates that they are facing in April. However, the debate is not being held in Government time. The Government and the SNP are not saying that this is an issue and that we are going to debate it; rather, it is being dealt with in Opposition time. It should not take the Conservatives to bring forward this debate in order to get responses from the Government, because this is such a serious issue. When the issue first hit our mailboxes, the Government should have responded. The issue was raised at First Minister’s questions.”
“I am addressing the apparent point of order that was made by Mr Findlay’s colleague. I would expect some respect to be shown to the chair and that Mr Findlay might manage to listen to my response to his colleague without interrupting. As I was saying, it is up to members to determine how they deal with their contributions in debates. On making corrections, all members are aware of the procedures and how to do that. 15:27”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Jamie Hepburn has just said that more than half of taxpayers in Scotland pay less income tax than is paid elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Mairi Spowage of the Fraser of Allander Institute has said that that claim has been false for the past two financial years. Will Mr Hepburn therefore use this opportunity to apologise for misleading the chamber and correct the Official Report? Perhaps if he does that, Government front-bench members, up to and including the First Minister, will stop using that spurious claim. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross will be aware that that is not a point of order. It is up to members to determine in what way they seek to contribute—[Interruption.] I say to members and Mr Findlay that I am speaking.”
“However, as a matter of courtesy and respect, if a minister is unable to provide information in response to a question, the expectation would be that they provide that information at the earliest opportunity. In relation to the second part of his point of order, I am not aware of the particular briefing that he refers to; similarly, I am not aware of any leak inquiry. A leak inquiry of the type that he refers to would be a matter for the First Minister in the first instance. With that, there will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, so that members on the front benches can change over. Income Tax”
“On a related point, yesterday, I outlined what seemed to be a case of party-political sources briefing newspapers on the outcome of the independent advisers’ report before it had been shared with members of the Scottish Parliament and with the Parliament. Has the First Minister or any member of the Scottish Government indicated to the Presiding Officer that a leak inquiry is now under way? If it is not, what action can the Presiding Officer or this Parliament take to ensure that a leak inquiry is undertaken? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Douglas Ross for advance notice of his point of order. In relation to the first part, he will be aware that, under standing orders, there is only a requirement for the Scottish Government to respond to lodged questions that were not taken in the chamber.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Yesterday, in replying to questions about the independent advisers’ report, which concluded that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs had breached the ministerial code on two occasions, Angela Constance was unable to answer a question that I put to her and she refused to engage with a second question at all. Following that session, I emailed the cabinet secretary at 16:52; that email was read at 16:53. The email asked for answers to the same questions that I had asked and had not received answers to in the chamber. So far, almost 24 hours later, I have received no response from the justice secretary. What requirement or expectation is there for ministers to promptly respond to questions that they were unable to answer in the chamber?”
“I know that there is a lot of information out there that is publicly available as a result of freedom of information requests and so on, but I cannot stand here and provide the detail of the information that Mr Ross is requesting in the here and now.”
“If she was interviewed, what was her explanation for the fact that it was not an error of judgment in the moment but that, in fact, four days had elapsed between her requesting a private call and having the call on 1 December? Angela Constance: I cannot provide the information that Mr Ross seeks, because I do not know who the officials were directly. I gave extensive evidence to Mr Ross and the committee that he chairs about the fact that I had received Professor Jay’s letter. What I am now saying to Parliament is that I should have acted on that letter at the time. The matter was left in the hands of officials. Who did what?”
“The cabinet secretary has been asked a couple of times today about correcting the Official Report. In response to Liam Kerr, she said that she had received no advice about correcting the Official Report. However, paragraph 13 of the independent advisers’ report says that “some Officials had canvassed an opinion that Parliament may not have been misinformed.” They were clearly wrong, but who were those officials? Were they independent civil servants or were they Scottish National Party special advisers? What did they do with the information that they canvassed? Secondly, was the cabinet secretary personally interviewed or spoken to by the independent advisers? If she was not, how can they have come to the conclusion that the second breach was an error of judgment in the moment and not deliberate?”
“Do they not have those laptops for learning from home? The First Minister: As Mr Ross will know, local authorities are responsible for the delivery of education in their localities, and the whole process of online learning is properly and statutorily delivered by local authorities. I know that Moray Council will be attentive to the delivery of distance learning when such occasions occur. I am familiar with the mechanisms that I put in place as education secretary to create the e-Sgoil, which is a digital learning platform that provides assistance to individuals in such circumstances and on many other occasions to enhance their educational contribution. All those resources are available to pupils the length and breadth of the country. CalMac Ferries (Repair and Maintenance Costs) 3.”
“Moray has seen a significant volume of snow, and schools are closed for a second day. I say that as a parent of two boys who have been unable to get to school and nursery. What support will the First Minister and the Scottish Government provide if the situation goes on for a prolonged period and pupils cannot get into school to learn at the start of the new term? The First Minister will be aware of the commitment that he gave in 2021 as education secretary, when he said: “the SNP will roll out a new programme to deliver into the hands of every school child in Scotland a laptop, Chromebook or tablet to use in school and at home.” Does the First Minister know how many children who are stranded and unable to get into school are using the laptops that he promised them, or was that a broken promise?”
“The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has repeatedly opposed local plans to manage and dredge the river, and has cut into the bank, which has affected the golf course, houses and other structures. Will the First Minister send a message to SEPA to tell it to stop meddling in such issues, stop prioritising flora and fauna over houses and infrastructure, and allow the management of the rivers that local people know best? The First Minister: SEPA has to exercise the statutory responsibilities that the Parliament has placed on it. It is important that SEPA deploys those statutory responsibilities in a proportionate manner, with the gathering of the appropriate evidence to inform its conclusions. Additional Support Needs 6.”
“When I saw that the motion was about small business Saturday, I thought that it was an opportunity for me to use my four minutes to give my personal thanks to Pearl for what she has provided to Forres, Moray and the wider community, not just through the business that she built up with her family and the support that she has given her customers but through the knowledge and expertise that she was ready and willing to pass on to other businesses in the area. Other businesses in Moray are doing well because of the help and support that they received from Pearl Hamilton. I say to Pearl from the Scottish Parliament chamber that we are grateful for everything that she has done and we wish her a very long and happy retirement. 18:03”
“Whenever I think of small business Saturday, I will think of Jeff coming out with Pearl and me to go round the other shops in Forres and Moray, getting our picture taken with our blue boards and supporting the FSB and small business Saturday. Pearl did a power of work with the FSB in Moray and across Scotland. Indeed, she also held national positions with the FSB. Pearl and Jeff together built up their business to what it became. Jeff has sadly passed away, but Pearl is keen to continue with the pet care element of the business, so she will continue to look after pets in Moray and the Highland area.”
“Last Friday, other traders on Tolbooth Street used their annual Christmas party to throw a surprise retirement party for Pearl. I am told that there would have been some pretty sore heads after it, as it was a very joyous affair. Pearl just has a way about her. She is great at customer service, whether someone is a regular customer, as I am, or a first-time entrant to her shop. She will find what the customer needs and deliver it with great style and enthusiasm. That is why she has built up such a strong customer base over many years. Throughout much of her 43 years in business, Pearl was supported by her family. Sadly, her husband Jeff died earlier this year. When I was a councillor on Moray Council, Jeff was an independent councillor for Kinloss and the wider Forres ward. They were a double act.”
“Pearl is retiring on Christmas eve after 43 years in business. Pearl started work in her teens on the croft where she was brought up and she has worked throughout her life. When she made her announcement, I reminded her that I had been a regular customer of hers, and I should declare an interest because I have my order in for Christmas eve for chicken food and cider vinegar for the chicken water. When she announced her retirement, I said that she had been in business longer than I had been alive. I meant that as a compliment to show her durability in business through good times and bad. Pearl has been a stable part of Moray business for so long, starting off in Kinloss and then becoming a stronghold on Tolbooth Street.”
“I congratulate my friend and colleague Rachael Hamilton on securing this important and topical debate. We have just been through small business Saturday and, as every speaker has said, we should support our small businesses throughout the year, not just on that one Saturday in December. I will focus my remarks on one small business and one small business owner in Moray. The minister and I do not agree on an awful lot, but I hope that, when I have concluded my remarks, he will agree with what I am about to say. I want to use this opportunity, on the penultimate day of the parliamentary year, to say a big thank you from our Parliament to a Moray businesswoman who has done so much, not just for her business but for small businesses in Moray, the Highlands, Scotland and across the UK. She is Pearl Hamilton of Pearl’s Pet Care.”
“We know that Professor Alexis Jay wrote to Angela Constance on 26 September, identifying the correction and clarification that she wished to have made. It is now being made on 17 December. In our standing orders, what remit is there for you, Presiding Officer, to deal with a member who takes so long to correct the official record?”
“The advice to members states that a “member may ask to make a statement during the next available plenary session” to explain the change in the Official Report. First, can I ask you, Presiding Officer, whether you have received any requests from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to make a statement? Given that we have only one sitting day until the festive recess, how will Parliament have the opportunity to review the change that the cabinet secretary wishes to make to the Official Report if it is not made in tonight’s Official Report? We will not get tomorrow’s Official Report until Parliament has risen. Has a request to make a statement been made? That is supposed to happen in the next plenary session after the mistake was identified.”