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 8 of 22.
“Rhoda Grant spoke about the survivors who have come to Parliament to give their testimony on prostitution and how not enough MSPs have heard from them. I agree, and I include myself in that. However, we have strong advocates, such as Rhoda Grant and Ash Regan, who provide a voice for those survivors by facilitating their coming to Parliament and by articulating their views in the chamber. That Rhoda Grant did so today, as well as providing information about what is happening internationally in France, Sweden and Ireland and how those countries have tackled prostitution—I hope that we can do the same here—was very helpful. I will mention Stuart McMillan again, although I do not have time to take an intervention. It was helpful that he mentioned his CPA experience.”
“However, it is about more than words and coming to the chamber every year and speaking about these issues—we must see action as well. Once again—I say this every time—Michelle Thomson gave an excellent speech. She said that men must be “active allies and agents of change”, and I think that every man in the chamber would agree with that. However, that is a message that we need to get across outside the chamber as well, and Michelle Thomson made that point very well. Pam Gosal rightly promoted her Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill and raised the appalling domestic abuse statistics that we have seen. I am certainly a very strong supporter of her bill, and I hope that others will support it, too.”
“That stays with people for the rest of their lives, and it affects family members, too. There were elements of both of Maggie Chapman’s speeches that I disagreed with, but she was most compelling when she read out some of the abuse that she has suffered on social media. I was struck not only by the impact that that must have on her as an individual, but by what it says to women and girls who aspire to be in this Parliament. I am worried about the culture on social media and what it does to put off female candidates across the political spectrum. That was also mentioned by Marie McNair. Alex Cole-Hamilton said that we must speak as one, and I think that we will at decision time tonight. Regardless of whether the Scottish Conservatives’ amendment is agreed to, I think that we will speak as one voice when it comes to the motion.”
“We cannot have Government members saying, on one hand, that it is good when more sexual crimes are reported, because that shows that people are more confident about reporting things, and, on the other, that things are clearly working when the opposite happens and the figures go back down again. Sexual assault is an area of concern. Katy Clark was quite right— Stuart McMillan: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I am sorry, but I have already taken one intervention. Stuart McMillan: You mentioned me. Douglas Ross: I know, but I want to try to get through everyone. I think that Katy Clark was the only person in today’s debate to mention mental health. We all look at the sometimes horrific physical abuse that women and girls suffer, but we must also consider the lingering mental illness and how it affects wellbeing.”
“The cabinet secretary pointed out how obvious it can sometimes be to pick up a leaflet rather than going online to get support, which could put people off. It is right that people have those opportunities. Tess White mentioned the increase in the number of sexual assault cases. I did not want to interrupt Stuart McMillan, but he challenged that a little by saying that it is a good thing, because it means that people are comfortable with reporting. I accept that, but, when the figures go back down again, the Government tends to say that that shows that things are working because sexual crimes are reducing.”
“When 39 of our fellow Scots have died over that time, we cannot keep coming here year after year and saying that the Government is doing everything right. We must do more to prevent such deaths. Until we can come to this debate and say that not a single woman has died as a result of male violence, the challenge will not have been met. That is why it is important that we have this debate. The cabinet secretary rightly focused on the digital sphere, given this year’s theme of “No excuse for online abuse”. I was also glad that she referenced the positive aspect of the digital community. As a representative of the Highlands and Islands, I know how important it is for some of our more remote and rural constituents that they have access to the same materials and support as people in more urban communities.”
“Of course, I do not disagree on the point about the Government being held to account. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for that, Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: I just disagree with Paul McLennan. I did not hear anything from Tess White, Sharon Dowey or Pam Gosal that the Government has not heard before and that does not need to be said in a debate such as this one. I will make a final point on the issue. This is now the fifth such debate of this session. When we came here in 2021, we all wanted the issue to be tackled and addressed and, while we have been here debating legislation, scrutinising the Government and asking questions, 39 women in Scotland have died due to violence by men. Thirty- nine lives—daughters, sisters, nieces and friends—have been lost.”
“The reason why we need debate and challenge, both from Opposition members and from those on the Government benches—I will come on to that when I mention other speakers—is that too many women and girls are still being assaulted, abused and killed in our country. Paul McLennan: I do not disagree with that. The debate is about what we can do to try to move forward, and we have talked about that. I appreciate some of the points that have been raised, but there has to be a balance in the debate as we take it forward. As I mentioned, I think that the points were politicised far too much for this kind of debate—that was the point that I was trying to make. I agreed with some of the points that were raised and I did not agree with others, but I think that, in some cases, the balance was wrong for this debate. That is the point that I was making.”
“I want to use my summing-up speech to pick up on points by every speaker, because it has been an excellent debate. The first speaker who I will address is Paul McLennan, who was the final speaker in the open debate. I have to say that I think that the debate has been consensual. There has been slight disagreement and challenge, but we need that, because the issue still causes too many problems in Scotland, across the UK and around the world. If we just turn up for this debate year after year and say that the Government is doing everything correctly and that nothing has to change, the problem will not get better.”
“We relayed to Police Scotland the concerns that members had expressed to me during the urgent question in September. At that meeting, Police Scotland told us that it was undertaking a thorough review of its handling of the protests on 4 September. I cannot tell the member when that review is due to be completed, but Police Scotland recognises the concerns that were raised about the handling of the incident. Managing protests outside the building is an operational matter for the police, but Police Scotland committed to a thorough review of what happened on 4 September. Use of Facilities and Services 4.”
“Douglas Ross: At that meeting, was the matter raised of the serious concerns from For Women Scotland and others about the way in which the police handled a counter-protest from one individual? What response was received from Police Scotland? The case of Susan Smith has been raised several times in the chamber. Was that raised, and were the actions that the police initially threatened to take—a recorded warning— which were later dropped? The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body should have asked for Police Scotland and the chief constable to apologise to Ms Smith for the actions that they took while she was legitimately protesting outside the Parliament. Claire Baker: The handling of the protests on 4 September was discussed.”
“Presiding Officer, I apologise for missing the start of these questions. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that my wife is a sergeant with Police Scotland. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what recent discussions it has held with Police Scotland about the policing of protests at the Scottish Parliament. (S6O-05188) Claire Baker (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): Police Scotland meets annually with the SPCB to provide a briefing on security issues as they relate to both Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. In advance of the election next year, representatives from Police Scotland attended the SPCB meeting on 20 November. Several issues were discussed, including the policing of protests at the Scottish Parliament.”
“Did officials hold up their hands and say, “Look, we’ve made a mistake here”? We do not know. We do not know any of the details. We do not know whether there will be further advice to officials to ensure that future legislation, in a similar vein or completely different, will not fall down in the same way.”
“As I explained to Michelle Thomson yesterday, the legal challenge has been aided by the Government’s own policy memorandum to the bill, which states that it is potentially not compliant with the European convention on human rights. In subsection (3) of the proposed section in amendment 11, I ask for the Government’s briefings, because we know from the letter that was released by the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans yesterday that officials took a couple of months to look into the issue. I still cannot understand why, when there was an issue of such scale—the Government was worried about losing £350 million—officials took from 23 June to 13 August to decide that something had to be done about it. That seems an awfully long time. What was the correspondence between the Government and officials at that point?”
“We’re worried about it and we might need to bring emergency legislation into the Scottish Parliament, so tell us what you’ve discovered in your local authority about the implementation of the bill and collecting revenue from businesses.” I am also asking for evidence of any discussions with owners of unoccupied properties who are paying non-domestic rates. Was the Government alerted to the error in some way by others, either indirectly through local authorities or directly by businesses? There is no doubt that NDR is not a popular tax. There was significant opposition to it. As we heard from my colleagues Murdo Fraser and Craig Hoy during the stage 1 debate yesterday, some businesses have not been happy about paying the tax and will be looking at legal challenge to the bill.”
“We have to know why things went wrong, why an error of that scale occurred and why it has taken us so long to get to this stage. Amendment 11 is on the discussions between the Government, COSLA—the representative body of all 32 local authorities—and individual local authorities. We found out yesterday that one local authority notified the Government of an issue on 23 June this year. Yesterday, the minister could not name that authority—I am not sure whether that is still the position. If that is the position, there might be good reasons for it, but we need to know whether the Government then went to the other 31 local authorities and said, “This issue has been raised with us.”
“However, we do not have long to consider that information, because the bill is now before us. During yesterday’s stage 1 debate, the Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, was asked by Pam Duncan-Glancy whether the Government would be transparent by publishing all the details surrounding what went wrong, when it knew about it, how it knew about it and who it discussed it with. The minister was relatively positive, which is why I am hopeful that the Government will support amendments 11 and 12 and consequential amendments 20 and 21, in my name. That is all that I am asking for, really. We have had a robust debate already, and members are on opposing sides. Some think that we should just nod the bill through without any amendments and correct the failure in the Government’s legislation. However, I do not think that that is enough.”
“The amendments that I have lodged in this group are on issues that I have been raising for the past two days, and I will repeat them today. They are about transparency. Some members think that this is a small issue, but we believe that it is a big issue, because we are speaking about £350 million of taxpayers’ money. There is an issue. A flaw in the legislation was identified and the Government has gone through the process to bring us to the stage that we are at today, where we are speaking on amendments to this bill, which will potentially be passed later. On the very first day that we discussed this— Tuesday—I asked the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans whether the Government would release information on the bill, to be wholly transparent. His response at the time was that the Government would consider doing that.”
“Douglas Ross: What we can guarantee, based on Murdo Fraser’s letter to the Presiding Officer, is that this bill will be challenged—not because of what we, as Opposition politicians, are saying but because of what the Government itself is saying in its own accompanying documents to the bill. It will not take a professional lawyer much time to make an argument, because the argument will be to hold up the Government’s own documents that accompany the bill—because those admit the deficiencies in the bill that the Government is trying to pass.”
“However, if we cannot get that guarantee, there is no reason to support the bill, because the money absolutely could be lost. Even if a member supports the bill and the member’s argument is to support the bill to protect the money, the money could still be lost, because of the way that this Government legislated and the way that the problem has unravelled. John Mason: rose— Douglas Ross: Can I get the time back for taking John Mason’s intervention, Presiding Officer? John Mason: Does the member accept that every piece of legislation made in this place can be challenged in the courts? We cannot guarantee that any piece of legislation will not be challenged.”
“If the bill passes—the bill that the minister is taking forward and that members of his Government’s party and the Labour Party are supporting to protect £350 million of public money—can he guarantee to members who support it that that £350 million will be protected, or does he accept that there is a risk of legal challenge and that the £350 million could be challenged in the courts? Ivan McKee: I know that, if we do not pass the bill, that £350 million absolutely will be lost. I also know that the legal underpinning for taking this forward is robust, and that is the basis on which we are taking it forward. Douglas Ross: I am sorry, but it is not a difficult question. The minister and Joe FitzPatrick said that Opposition politicians should not make politics with this matter.”
“He must have sat down too early—I took interventions from everybody who had their request-to-speak button pressed. Of course, in going through the process, we take legal advice on how we need to proceed, and that robust legal advice underpins what we are taking forward in this legislation. It is essential that we pass the bill to address this issue. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: That was not my question. Let me ask it again.”
“If the argument that we must support the bill to protect £350 million of public money is true, the minister will be able to stand up and say that, if his bill passes at stage 3 tomorrow, that £350 million is guaranteed, so there will be no opportunity—no flaws in the legislation—that would allow a legal challenge. As Murdo Fraser and others have said, this is going to end up in the courts, so can the minister, who is seeking support for his bill at stage 1 and, ultimately, tomorrow at stage 3, give the Parliament a cast-iron guarantee that the money referred to in his financial memorandum will go to local services and that it will not, in any way, be effectively challenged in the courts? Ivan McKee: First, I apologise to Douglas Ross for not taking his intervention.”
“This is an absolute mess. It is a mess of this Government’s own making, and each day brings more questions. I repeat what I said yesterday when the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans said that some of us on the Opposition benches were looking for conspiracies. Well, we are being aided by a Government that is not being up front and honest. I also want to address something that is at the heart of the nationalist support, certainly, and that I understand is Labour’s reason for supporting the bill. I tried to intervene on the minister, but it was the only intervention that he did not take. [Interruption.] I do not take it personally, and I will give way to him to allow him to answer this question.”
“That is an appropriate means of correcting the record. The other issues that Mr Ross has raised can reasonably be raised during the debate that we are about to proceed with. Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“I genuinely think that there will now be SNP members who are uncomfortable that their minister was not over the detail yesterday and, more crucially, that their Government knew about the issue months before it told the Parliament. That is why I believe that it is important for us to have the debate and vote again. A suspension of standing orders under rule 17.2 would be the right way to do that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross. That is not a point of order. Nevertheless, to respond to the questions that you asked, I am not aware of the date on which the Presiding Officer was informed. I am not minded to accept a motion without notice. I am aware that the minister has written to the Presiding Officer to clarify the position, and I think that he copied in the business managers.”
“Secondly, in light of this new information, will you accept a motion under rule 17.2 of standing orders to suspend standing orders and allow us to rerun the debate on the emergency motion that the Government brought forward yesterday? I believe and hope that, now that even Scottish National Party members have heard that their own Government knew about the error two months earlier than it said yesterday that it did, they could change their minds. They could say that the Government had more than enough time, before the last week of November, to deal with this issue, because it knew about it not just in the past few weeks or months but before the Parliament even rose for the summer recess. We were still sitting— we had not gone away on recess—but the Government chose to remain silent.”
“Therefore, it was not just a minister misspeaking in the chamber and potentially reading a note wrong. When the Government tried to inform other MSPs to get them on side—I remember that some of the discussions were about getting things through as quickly as possible, with no amendments and little fuss—it told Opposition members that the date was in August. My question is: on what date was the Presiding Officer of this Parliament told? If the Government put the case to our Presiding Officer—the guardian of what we do in the Parliament—that the date was in August, but it now turns out that the date was in June, two months earlier, that raises huge questions, not just about what the Government tells MSPs but about what it tells our Presiding Officer. Therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, I ask first whether you will answer that question.”
“I said yesterday that people outside the Parliament will not believe that something can credibly be called a piece of emergency legislation if the Government has known about the issue since August. People will be even more confused as to why the Government thinks that something is an emergency now, at the end of November, when it knew about it in June. That raises serious questions. First, it was bad enough that the minister was not over the detail in the chamber and gave that answer. I would be keen to know whether the minister had been briefed to say that the date was in August or whether that was just a slip of the tongue. Secondly, I understand from my business manager and from Craig Hoy, who is leading for our party on this issue, that, in briefings with ministers, Opposition politicians were also told that the date was in August.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of the point of order, but it is important that members are aware that, in the past hour, Graeme Dey has had to write to the Presiding Officer and to me to correct the record of yesterday’s debate on the emergency bill motion. In response to an intervention, Graeme Dey— the minister who is urging his own MSPs and members across the Parliament to back a piece of emergency legislation—told me that the Government was first made aware of the flaws in its legislation in August. He is now putting on the official record that that date was not in August or even in July—it was in June. The Government knew about the issue in June.”
“He said: “a strengthened windfall tax should be an important source of funding”—[Official Report, 26 October 2022; c 56.] and that it should be broadened. John Swinney, now the First Minister, said: “We have been clear that an enhanced windfall tax should fund that support in place of increased borrowing or spending cuts.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2022; c 25.] I will take no lectures from the SNP. It wanted the EPL, and it called for it. It cannot now cry foul when it is implemented. 15:32”
“If he turns round, he can ask Jackie Dunbar what on earth she was thinking when she said: “We must extend the windfall tax”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2022; c 97.] If he turns back round and looks to the front bench, he can ask Gillian Martin what she was thinking when she said: “We need to put a windfall tax in operation”.—[Official Report, 18 May 2022; c 36.] When he travels back to Aberdeen, he can ask Stephen Flynn why he lodged a motion in the House of Commons that said that the Government should implement a windfall tax on companies. Kevin Stewart: [Made a request to intervene.] Douglas Ross: No, I am not giving way to Kevin Stewart. When Tom Arthur, an SNP minister, comes into the chamber, maybe he can say why he not only supported the energy profits levy, but said that he wanted it to be broadened.”
“I want to use the remainder of my time to focus on the rant that we heard from Gillian Martin at the end of her speech, about the EPL and the Conservatives, and the disgraceful speech that we just had from Kevin Stewart. SNP speaker after SNP speaker has criticised the energy profits levy, but not one of them has been honest enough to say that they called for it; they demanded it. They said there must be— Kevin Stewart: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I am not going to give way to Kevin Stewart. I certainly will not waste my time on Kevin Stewart, but let Kevin Stewart listen to what some of his own SNP members had to say about an energy profits levy.”
“The Government made a commitment—it made a pledge in the chamber—to develop a just transition plan. I would like the cabinet secretary to review her answer after the debate, because my understanding, from a request made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, is that the Scottish Government said that the plan was in progress. That was more than two months ago. If the cabinet secretary is saying that it was starting to do that work in just the past couple of months, she has potentially misled the Parliament. However, the issue is not going away, because this is typical of the SNP: it makes grand announcements in the chamber, it does not do the work, and then it cries foul and blames other people when problems such as this occur.”
“Màiri McAllan announced that a just transition plan for Mossmorran would be worked on after the deployment of the Grangemouth just transition plan, which is only a couple of months old. What we did not see coming was what ExxonMobil has done. The UK Government knew about that a good few months in advance of us, and Kate Forbes is on record as saying when she was told about ExxonMobil’s decision in relation to Mossmorran. The just transition plan would have made no difference to this announcement that we did not know about. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, that was a very long intervention. Douglas Ross: That was a very long answer. First of all, we do not know what difference it would make, because no one has ever seen the plan.”
“What an absolutely dreadful speech that was by Kevin Stewart. I will pick up on a number of the points that he made in it in a moment, because it was completely blind to his own party’s failings on the issue. However, I want to start on another point. Douglas Lumsden, in his excellent opening speech, and Willie Rennie both mentioned Mossmorran. I just cannot get past this point, so I will use the debate to ask for a very simple answer from the cabinet secretary. In April 2024, her predecessor, Màiri McAllan, said that the Government was developing a just transition plan for Mossmorran. Where is that plan? Gillian Martin: I think that Douglas Ross has been given the answer to that question.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the chief executive of NHS Grampian to discuss healthcare in Moray. (S6O-05201)”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. Will you confirm how long I get for this? The Presiding Officer: Up to five minutes. Douglas Ross: That is perfect. I was not going to speak in this debate at all, but I thought it disrespectful and, frankly, disgusting for a minister summing up a debate about such important legislation—not just any minister, but the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans—to be so disrespectful to the Parliament that he did not respond to the points that were made in the debate. I will therefore try to make them again, because there are serious questions that I hope that the minister will use his summing up in this debate to answer. If the Government first knew about the flaws in its legislation in August, why are we only now, at the end of November, looking at emergency legislation? Which ministers—”
“Russell Findlay asked the minister a very specific question, which she refused to answer. Without saying the words “I have been very clear”—here in the chamber, it does not feel like she has been— can the minister just tell us whether the Scottish Government will release all correspondence between it and Professor Alexis Jay? Yes or no? Natalie Don-Innes: I will have to get back to Douglas Ross on that point, because I do not have the information—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the minister. Natalie Don-Innes: —in relation to the correspondence that has been passed back and forth. I will be more than happy to follow up on Mr Ross’s question in writing. Business Motions 17:09”
“The bill seeks to correct that legislative error, give effect to the original policy intent and bring matters into line with the position as understood by local authorities and ratepayers.”
“How would the Government view amendments to the bill, if it proceeds as emergency legislation, to ensure that the Government publishes all evidence—all details and all written and email communications—about the bill, so that we can see that it was treated as an emergency and has not been added in the week of the United Kingdom Government budget to try to hide it among other stories? Graeme Dey: This is a serious matter. It would be a matter of regret for the Parliament to have the process clouded by conspiracy theories of the type that Mr Ross is seeking to advance. The amendment in 2019 did not indubitably have the intended legal effect, and it appears that there has been no certain legal basis to charge rates on unoccupied non-domestic properties since that date.”
“Once that was finalised and completed internally, the bill was introduced to Parliament at the soonest opportunity, with business managers informed last Thursday, ahead of publication on Monday. I explain to Mr Ross that, under parliamentary process, that is quite a rapid exercise. [Graeme Dey has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] Douglas Ross: I do not think that it is rapid. People outside this building would not think that a Government finding out about a major flaw in its own legislation in the summer and then bringing emergency legislation in the last week of November is rapid.”
“The minister said that the error was “recently identified”. Can he tell us how recently? Graeme Dey: I am more than happy to do that. In August— Douglas Ross: August? Graeme Dey: If the member would allow me to explain— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, please resume your seat for a second. We are not proceeding like this. We are going to hear the person who has the floor, and then we are going to call the next person, and everybody else will listen to them with courtesy and respect. Graeme Dey: Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I said, in August of this year, a query was raised with the Scottish Government. That was investigated and, in mid-September, it was identified that there was indeed an issue. Since then, Scottish Government officials have worked at pace to develop the proposed remedial legislation.”
“I might get this quote slightly wrong, but Kenny Logan and Sir Chris Hoy have talked about the importance of people writing to their GP to request a test, so that that is on their records. If I have got that incorrect, I apologise, and I will correct the record. Care Provision (Immigration) 2.”
“I have increased my knowledge of prostate cancer and screening for it following my dad’s diagnosis, and I asked the cabinet secretary a question about the issue last year. The Government’s response has been positive, but I am still hearing about too many cases of people asking for a PSA test and not getting one, with their GP advising that it is not suitable for them. If people have concerns, should the GP not allow the PSA test to take place, to either rule in or rule out prostate cancer, because we know that early diagnosis really makes a difference? Jenni Minto: I recognise the work that Douglas Ross has been doing to raise awareness of prostate cancer. Yesterday, I was made aware that, in relation to prostate cancer, there are some areas of health where PSA tests are not being offered to men. It is important that they maintain that.”
“However, as a matter of courtesy and respect, I expect all members to strive to be accurate in their contributions. That concludes First Minister’s questions. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Clare Adamson. There will now be a short suspension to allow those in the chamber and in the public gallery who wish to leave to do so. 12:47 Meeting suspended. 12:48 On resuming— Pancreatic Cancer Awareness”
“In April 2024, Màiri McAllan announced that the Scottish Government would develop a just transition plan for Mossmorran. Russell Findlay and others have asked the First Minister about that plan, but he refused to give any answers. The ministerial code says that ministers must be open and transparent with the public and the Parliament. Would it be a breach of the ministerial code and, potentially, the standing orders of the Parliament if the First Minister is aware of where that plan is, but has refused to tell Parliament, or is aware that the development of the plan was never progressed and has not told Parliament that? The Presiding Officer: As members are aware, the content of a member’s contribution is not ordinarily a matter for the chair to comment on.”
“To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take in response to reported figures from the road safety charity, Brake, which show that over the last year road deaths and serious injuries rose by 2.8 per cent nationally, with Moray recording the highest increase, with a rise of 83 per cent. (S6F-04462)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will commit to providing full details of why each of the 3,537—or 47 per cent of—applications to the future farming investment scheme were deemed ineligible, including whether ministers raised any concerns when presented with this figure. (S6O- 05178)”
“I raised the plight and the campaign of the save our surgeries group with her when I met her a couple of months ago, but I am still waiting for a response for the group from NHS Grampian. I urge the minister and NHS Grampian to engage constructively with SOS Burghead Hopeman, because it has plans that can improve local healthcare. Those plans are innovative and could make a real difference to those two communities, and I hope that they are taken seriously.”