Edward Mountain
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“They should spare a thought for the 1,700 people who make this place work. Do not ignore them. It is they who make it possible for members to do what they do on a daily basis. Secondly, make friends across the chamber. I have tried to do that, and it has delivered for me. Thirdly, focus on one issue. My issue found me.”
“There will be £6.6 billion in co-benefits from the changes in the transport sector, relating to improved health outcomes, increased exercise and reduced pollution, which I mentioned in my statement. I mentioned the changes from the draft plan in my statement and in my response to Sarah Boyack.”
“The other thing that has frustrated me and, I think, many people across Scotland is the constant deflections that we hear. There are cries of, “If only we had the tools and the levers of power that we need.” I gently remind politicians in this Parliament that it is about what is possible, and much is possible in this Parliament.”
“Rhoda Grant has been an incredible champion for crofting—I have seen that come to the fore through the passage of this legislation—and a force for the Highlands and Islands. She has also called for the right to food.”
“Elements of the legislation will help crofters to begin the process of adaptation, but there was room in the bill to speed things up. At stage 2, we proposed giving crofters the benefits from environmental use of the land, an environmental use advice service and public financing.”
“As this will be my last speech in the Parliament, I hope that the minister will excuse me if I touch only briefly on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. It is nothing like what we were promised in 2016.”
The complete record
Every one of 490 lines we hold for Edward Mountain, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“I move, That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s 10th Report, 2026 (Session 6), Report on the Draft Climate Change Plan (SP Paper 1031), and the reports and letters from other committees, as referenced in the report. 15:00”
“I look forward to hearing members’ views on whether the wait was worth it and whether, in the next few weeks, the draft climate change plan can be turned into a climate change plan that will get delivery back on track. Presiding Officer, I will just say that, on the basis of the process alone, I have been underwhelmed by, and am deeply sceptical of, the way in which the Parliament has dealt with this issue. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mountain. Can I ask you to move the motion, please? Edward Mountain: I apologise, Presiding Officer. My notes do say to move the motion at the end of my speech, but I did not see them.”
“I say, with regret, that the Parliament is in the same place as it was five years ago. We are doing this work right at the end of the parliamentary session, something that I counselled against as convener when we started the process. That has been extremely challenging for committees, but it is not the primary concern; the key issue is that the Scottish Government has only three weeks if the cabinet secretary is to meet her own deadlines to finalise the plan and meet the timetable. That is bad practice, because it lowers confidence in what should be a robust process. We must remember that the Government will have to consider all the committee’s reports and the consultations with the public and then implement all of that in the final plan.”
“The industry instead suggested that a role for drop-in biofuels would be more appropriate, and we have asked the Government to explore that. On waste, the committee was concerned that projections for energy from waste emissions might be underestimated, following the decision to delay the enforcement of the ban on biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill shortly before the plan was submitted. A thread that runs through the plan is just transition, and it includes the welcome addition of just transition indicators. The Economy and Fair Work Committee led that work, but we heard evidence on it, too, and we recommend that the Scottish and UK Governments work together on site-specific just transition plans where they are needed. I will finish on the process of developing the climate change plan.”
“The committee considers that the plan relies in large part on electrification, without laying out the absolutely vital issue of how electricity costs will be reduced. We also found the plan to be insufficient in setting out how the Government proposes to meet the substantial increase in renewable energy required to electrify key technologies, especially in the absence of an updated energy strategy. On transport, we noted that the plan places significant reliance on the uptake of electric vehicles. There is a considerable move away from the 2020 climate change plan update, which committed to an ambitious target of reducing car mileage by 20 per cent by 2030. The draft plan now proposes only a 4 per cent reduction. We heard particularly concerning evidence from industry that plans to electrify heavy goods vehicles were totally unrealistic.”
“Although we welcomed the reopening of the climate engagement fund, we recommended that the Scottish Government communicate clearly what the plan means to people’s everyday lives and work with communities and others to do that. The agriculture, land use, buildings and industry sectors were considered by the rural, local government and economy committees respectively, and we agreed whole-heartedly with their conclusions and recommendations. I will now briefly touch on the three sectors that we considered. On energy, we discussed the reliance of the draft plan on negative emissions technologies and asked the Government to set out how it would monitor whether those technologies were on track to come online in time to meet its ambitions.”
“Thirdly, we noted that delivering changes throughout the economy is a complex task; it needs co-ordinated action across the breadth of Government and with multiple partners over long periods. We discussed dependencies on UK Government action, particularly on electricity, where lower electricity costs would help—and, indeed, are desperately needed in several key areas if we are to decarbonise at the pace that is being asked. Fourthly, we noted the critical role for local government, which I am sure the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s convener will touch on in her contribution. We also heard evidence of the support that communities and individuals need and the role that they could play in reducing emissions.”
“We accepted that it would be challenging for costs and benefits modelling specifically to set out where and on whom costs will fall, but we also asked the Government to reflect on whether the draft falls short in signalling to the public and stakeholders what costs and incentives there are and who will have to pay those costs. Secondly, we discussed the approach to monitoring in the draft plan, which includes a proposal for early warning indicators to account for the fact that accurate emissions data comes with a delay. However, the draft does not say what those indicators will be. We recommend that they be published at the earliest opportunity to ensure that corrective action can be taken when required. They should also be performance indicators, and have a clear link to the corresponding policies published in the plan.”
“We agree that delivery must be the central focus of the final plan, but we found that the draft falls somewhat short as a delivery-focused document. The plan should clearly set out how the Government will use its powers to drive down emissions. Where it does not have powers, it should be clearer about that. We found four areas that the Government should consider. First, we recognise that all climate policy is underpinned by modelling, which is intrinsically uncertain. However, we heard that the information on emissions, costs and benefits— and the latter two, in particular—does not give the detail needed to scrutinise the Government’s assumptions. The Government should welcome informed and constructive criticism of the data and assumptions that it has used, and the final plan should provide more of that.”
“The draft plan in front of us is the first under the changes made by the 2024 act, and the first statutory draft plan since the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. After the end of the parliamentary scrutiny period, which falls today, the Scottish Government must lay a final climate change plan, reflecting on the views that it has heard. The cabinet secretary has said that it is her intention to do so before dissolution in just a few weeks, but, legally, it does not have to be done within that timeframe. As a committee, we acknowledge that there has been good progress overall, with emissions having more than halved since 1990. Recently, however, momentum has been lost, and we heard that more challenging actions will now be needed across more sectors.”
“I thank all of those who engaged with the committee during that process. As the lead committee, we proposed dividing up the work on the draft plan, and I thank all the other committees involved for their work to ensure that this was a cross-committee effort. There are now four committee reports on the draft plan, including our own, and six other committees sent letters to support our work. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 followed advice from the Climate Change Committee that the targets to reduce emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 were no longer achievable. The 2024 act moved to a system of five-year carbon budgets, replacing annual targets, and moved back the date by which a plan was required.”
“Helpfully, my office has written the word “farmer” at the start of the speech, to which I have added “Not yet.” However, because we will be talking about agriculture, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I have a farm in Moray. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I thank my committee colleagues and the clerks for their work not only to scrutinise the draft plan but to produce our report over a fairly hectic three days. As I will touch on later, the process has, to my mind, been frustrating and slightly unedifying, but I am content that we as a committee have played our part well. The committee held nine evidence sessions, a call for views and a targeted online consultation. We met young people and got out and about, with a visit to Aberdeen.”
“I can point to a few ministers who have moved sideways and then been promoted to other jobs. One or two ministers have disappeared out of the Parliament for other reasons, but we will not go into that. What have the islanders got for that? They have lost business and they have lost out on receiving care—they have genuinely lost out. For that, the Parliament should be ashamed. I hope that the Government will hang its head when it comes to this ferry fiasco. Before I close, I will just say that I have appreciated the companionship of Fiona Hyslop in the Parliament. I have enjoyed working alongside her—not always with her, and sometimes against her—and she has always done so with good humour, which has made my time in the Parliament all the richer. 16:34”
“Do I begrudge them that? Not a bit of it, in the sense that it is not the employees who are at fault here but the management, together with the Government’s failure to manage the situation. Let me be clear: the Government might think that it can argue that we have value for money, but, when the Glen Sannox was insured the other day, it was insured for £50 million. That is the rebuild cost. We know that building it has cost four times that amount. The market says that it would cost £50 million to replace the Glen Sannox, but look at how much we have paid. As we come to the end of the debate, my question is, who has lost their job? No one in Transport Scotland. I can point to one or two civil servants who have moved sideways and then been promoted to other jobs.”
“When those contracts were awarded, we knew that most yards across the world were working on the basis of five stage payments when it came to ferries, but—oh, no— the Scottish Government decided to work with 18 stage payments. When the yard was eventually nationalised, we paid £82 million of the £97 million, but we did not even have a ferry that was fit for purpose. Then things got progressively worse. We end up now, as we have been told, with £460 million having been spent on the ferries, with additional loans to Ferguson Marine of £15 million and £30 million. Interestingly, no one knew that the two loans were going ahead; they went ahead sort of independently. If we look at the total money that has been spent on the Ferguson Marine yard, it is about £1.5 million per employee. Members should let that sink in—£1.5 million per employee.”
“We have had Derek Mackay, Humza Yousaf, Graeme Dey, Jenny Gilruth, Kevin Stewart and Fiona Hyslop, who, in her second incarnation when it comes to ferries, seems to be doing a lot better. We have had cabinet secretaries in the form of Michael Matheson, Màiri McAllan and now Fiona Hyslop again. In all the time that I have been considering the ferries issue, I have not seen anyone being fired over this fiasco. I do not need to remind members, because we have already been reminded, that the contract was awarded in 2015, and it was 2017 when the—as it appeared to be at that stage— floating bathtub that was to become the Glen Sannox was launched.”
“I thank the Liberal Democrats, particularly Jamie Greene, for bringing the debate to Parliament. Over the past 10 years, he and I have shared many committee meetings where we looked at hulls 801 and 802, and it is those vessels that I will concentrate on today. When I was at school, when we were learning about history and Henry VIII, we were taught a little rhyme that went, “Divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived”. When it comes to teaching how the Government handled hulls 801 and 802, we will be reminded that it was a case of, “Redesigned, replaced, repurposed”. When it comes to ministers, or anyone in Transport Scotland or CMAL, the one “R” that is missing from that saying is that no one was removed. I am sure that I do not need to remind members of the many ministers who have presided over the ferries fiasco.”
“I get the point that the situation is varied, but demonising contractors is not helpful. They have to do a very difficult job. They might be getting paid more than full-time employees, but they work incredibly hard and are doing a very difficult job that is required by the Scottish Government to allow us to achieve our ambitions. Tree Equity (Urban Areas) 6.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I have a farm in Moray, where I control deer. Does the minister agree that deer management on the uplands of Scotland is now, in most cases, covered by deer management plans and that the problems are in the woods and the low grounds? Does the minister also agree that, rather than Forestry and Land Scotland using contracted stalkers, it would be better to have full-time employees doing proper deer management rather than just contract killing? Jim Fairlie: I disagree with that point. We need a range of options across the sector. It is not just roe deer or deer in lowland Scotland that we are talking about—it is deer across all areas. Deer will be overgrazing in some areas and undergrazing in others.”
“With the announcement that I have made today, we are now able—subject to all the due diligence points that I have previously made—to release additional funding from that capital commitment. The 20 per cent figure is not one that I am familiar with. It is important to state that, in undergoing the programme of modernisation, Ferguson Marine will need to work with the Scottish Government and others to ensure that the costs are appropriate. That is the reason for undertaking the due diligence work. However, I would be very sceptical of figures that are provided at this point, because they are in advance of both the due diligence process and the modernisation work that is required.”
“On the additional cost, we know how critical it is for the yard to undergo a programme of modernisation. If Ferguson Marine is to meet the objective that I have set—to secure work on the open market—it needs to be as competitive as possible. We have provided the additional capital investment in order to support Ferguson Marine’s modernisation objective, and it has been very clear about how it could invest in additional equipment and so on, so that it is internationally competitive. It has not been possible to release all that capital before there was work, because it needs to be clear that that investment is aligned with income that is coming into the yard.”
“We in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee have heard that the underrecoveries for Ferguson Marine run at about £1 million a month. That is required just to keep the lights on, and there will be considerably larger costs to run the yard between now and when the contracts come on stream. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the figure that was given to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—of costs of 20 to 25 per cent over and above the costs at any other yard—is what it would cost to award the vessels to Ferguson Marine? Effectively, she is ordering four boats, but she could have bought five somewhere else. Is that figure of 20 per cent no longer valid? Kate Forbes: I will talk about the principle then come to the specific figure.”
“The cost of the redevelopment work depends on what you want to do, because the cost of the more expansive work and the cost of the work that is required for the vessels are different. Having said that, I reassure Edward Mountain that funding will be made available as part of the ferries and ports budget in the spending review.”
“In his capacity as convener of a number of committees at different times, Edward Mountain has fully examined at length all the issues that he referred to. He might want to dwell in 2017, but I want to dwell in 2026. In fact, he wants to go back to 2015, which is even longer ago. It must be remembered that Peel Ports is a private company. Many harbours are private harbours, which means that arrangements have to be made on a commercial basis. There is a difference between repairs and redevelopment. The cost of the short-term repairs will be met by the funding that is to be transferred for the purchase of the harbour in the next few weeks, as part of this year’s budget.”
“I welcome the purchase of Ardrossan harbour and the work that has gone into it. I will park the fact that it should have happened in 2015, when the Glen Sannox was ordered. We ordered a boat that was longer than the length of the pier, which needs to be lengthened and strengthened, and the harbour needs to be supported by a new terminal and new liquefied natural gas storage facilities. Before buying the harbour, the cabinet secretary must have worked out all the costs that are involved in doing that. Will she tell the Parliament the costs of the repairs and when they will start? Fiona Hyslop: I recall that, in 2017, I was the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs, so I was pursuing that agenda instead.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, further to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care’s letter to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee regarding the funding required for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill on 26 February, what current NHS services would potentially be reduced to meet such costs. (S6T-02930).”
“Secondly, will the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans find out when Ferguson Marine found out about the statement and perhaps tell it to give due respect to committees of this Parliament, given their workloads? There is a considerable amount of work to be done before the end of the session, and the notice that it gave was totally unacceptable. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. 14:08”
“It was therefore deeply unhelpful to be told less than 24 hours before the committee meeting that Ferguson Marine could not turn up because Transport Scotland had told it that it would be inappropriate for it to do so. That left no time for the committee to schedule some of the many other items of business that we could have taken, and we were left meeting at 8.15 this morning with a significant gap in our work programme. I have two questions. First, does the Parliament think that it is acceptable for Ferguson Marine to have told the committee less than 24 hours before it was due to attend the committee meeting that it would be unable to do so when it must have known, like the Parliament, that the statement was going to take place?”
“Presiding Office, I do not need to point out to you or members in the chamber the pressure that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee is under at the moment, along with many other committees of this Parliament. Only last week, we had to have three committee meetings to get our climate change report published in time to meet the Government’s last-minute deadlines. We are still taking evidence, and we will meet on 24 March, which is the last day when we can meet in the current session of Parliament, to sign off various items that still need to be considered. They include various statutory instruments that are being laid before the committee and a request by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to consider a legislative consent memorandum on the Railways Bill. Those matters require a considerable amount of work and investigation.”
“I do not want to speak against the motion, but I want to speak about the fact that it has caused some confusion and some issues regarding the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. The political parties in this Parliament learned at 11:47 on Friday that there was going to be a statement on Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) in the chamber today. I know that for a fact, because, at that stage, I asked to speak when that ministerial statement was being made. However, it was not until Monday at 13:43 that Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) told the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that it was unable to attend the committee meeting that was scheduled for this morning. That was less than 24 hours’ notice.”
“Some 12 months ago, I warned the Scottish Parliament that Highland NHS Board was intentionally—according to our vascular surgeon— running down care provision in the Highlands. Last week, the First Minister told the Inverness Courier that it is acceptable for Highlanders to have to travel for up to four hours to Perth and Aberdeen in order to access treatment, simply because there is not a critical mass of cases in the Highlands. Given the success of the national treatment centre in Inverness, which I applaud, will the Government focus on delivering specialist care at Raigmore hospital, so that Highlanders can get treatment close to their homes and families?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what potential challenges it anticipates in relation to the scheduling of a chamber debate on the climate change plan before the end of the current parliamentary session. (S6O-05522)”
“We must also remember that hospices are not simply buildings; they are also about the people who go out to communities to support families at an important time in their lives.”
“The lack of palliative care is keenly felt in rural areas, especially across the Highlands. Some people need to travel hundreds of miles to get palliative care and are often separated from their family. We heard on television the other night that the lack of palliative care might give those people no option but to opt for assisted dying. That is surely not the position that we want to be in. Jenni Minto: I agree with Edward Mountain that that is definitely not the situation that we want to be in. I, too, represent a rural constituency, which has islands as well, so I keenly feel that point. I have just returned from Inverness, where I was pleased to see big advertising hoardings for Highland Hospice and also one of its vans driving around the city. That hospice is important.”
“We need pens to be removed from migration routes for salmon. We need to drive down sea lice numbers—I know that the Government is working hard on that. We also need to see a reduction in disease. The aquaculture industry must rise to those challenges. Like other members, I encourage future MSPs to become involved in the nature champions initiative. They should not be put off if they cannot get the species that they want. They should find one that they can represent, and they should stand up and fight for it, learn all about it and do the best that they can for it in the Parliament. 18:09”
“I believe that the Scottish Parliament will have to consider that water is becoming a diminishing resource in Scotland. Allowing abstraction from one river catchment to another, with the effect that rivers dry out, is not a good idea. For example, we are abstracting water from the Spey and putting it into the Tay and the Fort William area to generate electricity. The result is that the rivers are drying up, the stones are heating up and water temperatures are rising in the river. It is not just salmon that are dying because of that but freshwater mussels, too. At the other end of that issue, we see increased flooding over short periods. I have seen parr and smolts washed out of the river, when they should be living in the river. I have to mention aquaculture. We need to see a huge change in aquaculture.”
“They come here not only to try to catch salmon but to engage in all the activities that Scotland offers, such as partaking in our great food and drink, enjoying our whisky and visiting the other facilities around Scotland. A huge amount of anglers come to our rivers and generate more than £100 million- worth of income for Scotland every year. When I move into retirement at the end of this session, I hope to spend a lot more of my life involved in trying to help salmon as well as catching them. There are huge threats to the salmon population, such as climate change, whether it involves floods or drought; predation, with seals coming up the river Dee, as we heard today; and aquaculture. I will concentrate on two of those issues this evening. The first issue that I will address is water.”
“I stand to speak on behalf of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. I thank John Mason for bringing this debate to the chamber and Scottish Environment LINK for giving me the chance to represent that wonderful fish. It would have been wrong for me not to register my interest in the debate, in the sense that I have been involved in managing salmon fisheries for nearly 50 years and have been trying to catch them for about the same amount of time. Interestingly, Christine Grahame got the species that I was hoping to get. I do not begrudge her that, and I am very grateful to be able to support the salmon. I want to talk about it because it is one of the reasons why many people flock to Scotland.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I own a farm in Moray, which includes some trees. To ask the Scottish Government whether its tree planting targets for 2025-26 will be reached. (S6O- 05490)”
“I will close by thanking all the people and organisations who are already making community wealth building a reality across Scotland. There has been a great deal of interest in the passage of the legislation in Scotland and, indeed, beyond. Lorna Slater’s comment about the worldwide fame that the bill has achieved through the mechanism of TikTok is worth reflecting on. Scotland can claim many firsts, and I urge members to vote for the bill, which will make it the first national community wealth building legislation in the world. Parliamentary Bureau Motion 16:40”
“Richard Leonard’s comments are always worth listening to, whether or not members agree with all of them. His point about the level of ambition is absolutely important and something to be taken on board. He is absolutely right about the need to have something serious in mind. The Government is genuine in engaging with the issues. His amendments were not agreed to for various reasons, but, on the intent and principle behind them, we will take forward work in that regard where we can. When he started talking about Nye Bevan and used a quote about mice, I was not sure whether he was going to pivot to Nye Bevan’s other famous quote about vermin. Thankfully, Richard Leonard did not go there, because that would have destroyed the consensual atmosphere that we have had in the discussion.”
“It is nice and very useful to know that Stephen Kerr is not, in principle, opposed to Wiltshire. [Laughter.] On his point about procurement, however, it is easy to say that we need to do more. We absolutely need to do more, but it is also important, if we are serious about making progress, to recognise what has been achieved. As I outlined in my opening speech, in Scotland, 47 per cent of our £16.5 billion public sector procurement spend is with SMEs, which is more than double the rate of the UK as a whole, and we should be proud of that. In fact, SMEs’ share of public sector procurement is larger than SMEs’ share of the total economy. Although we want to continue to do more in that regard, it is important to recognise the significant progress that has been made in the platform that we are building on.”
“Lorna Slater’s call for communities to take advantage of the legislation and to power it forward to the next phase was very welcome. There were calls for wider work in that regard. It is worth reflecting on some of those calls, because the bill is not the beginning or the end—it is very much a part of the journey. It builds on some of the great work that has already happened, including work on asset transfer legislation, work that we are taking forward on compulsory sales orders and reforming the compulsory purchase order regime, and work that the Registers of Scotland is focused on delivering around the land register. All of that work continues. I want to make special mention of the procurement achievements of previous Governments since the 2014 act was passed.”
“Based on his incitement of community groups not to wait for permission but just to take over land, be it private or public, we can say that Daniel Johnson is by nature an anarchist, which is an interesting reflection. [Laughter.] Meanwhile, Lorna Slater self-identified as an entrepreneur. There has been some interesting crossover of perspectives in this discussion, which I think has added to the strength of the bill. Lorna Slater made some really good points about the potential for alternative business models to grow to scale, and I think that that is absolutely key. There is no reason why supported businesses, whether co-operatives or employee- owned businesses, cannot grow to scale and be significant engines in the economy. Richard Leonard shares that perspective and articulates it very well.”
“I will turn to some of the contributions from members. Murdo Fraser and Daniel Johnson made a point about moving assets into local ownership and use and making that as straightforward and easy as possible. In my application of the existing asset transfer legislation, the principle that I adopt—as does the Government more widely—is the presumption that the transfer will add value to local communities and that such transfers should be supported wherever possible. At one interesting point in the debate, Daniel Johnson said that whether someone was a capitalist, a socialist, an environmentalist or a social democrat, they should support the bill, and Stephen Kerr asked him which of those things he was. I think that we now know the answer to that question.”
“Through the process of scrutiny that was led by the Economy and Fair Work Committee, the bill acquired some additions that add value. The final provisions in the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill empower our public sector bodies rather than dictate to them. The statements that it requires future Scottish Governments to make, allied to the statutory guidance that will be published, will help local partnerships to produce tailored and practical action plans. On Murdo Fraser’s point about what is next, it is clear that significant work must be done on pulling the guidance together. Officials are already working on that and will continue to bring it forward. I am sure that any future Government will be keen to engage widely across the chamber on the guidance to ensure that it is effective in delivering on the agenda.”
“Legislating for community wealth building means that there will be consistent implementation across Scotland of an economic development model that benefits communities by creating and protecting jobs, supporting business growth and extending influence over how assets are owned and used. In line with the principles that underpin our public sector reform aims, the bill as introduced was designed to deliver impact while being lean and focused. Murdo Fraser talked about resources, and I welcome his support, at stages 2 and 3, for ensuring that the bill remained lean and focused. Our objective is to deliver in an efficient way within the public sector. Keeping the bill focused on the ability to deliver in as lean a way as possible is absolutely core to our mission.”
“Let us get into the practical work and make the legislation mean something. If we do not do so, we will have passed another bill that looks impressive on paper but changes absolutely nothing in practice. The people whom we represent deserve better than that. 16:34 Ivan McKee: I would like to thank all members for what has been, by and large, a constructive debate. I think that it is true to say that there is consensus that community wealth building is an approach to economic development that can help to deliver sustainable growth and foster resilience in our local economies.”
“Keep going. Stephen Kerr: Listen, there is not going to be a division on that, okay? [Laughter.] Believing in those things means being serious about delivery. It means asking whether legislation changes decisions or whether it simply generates another plan, report and document that are quietly filed away somewhere in the cloud. We need seriousness. We need a Government that is genuinely committed to backing local businesses, organisations and community groups. We need a Government that understands that wealth is created not by frameworks but by people who take risks, create value and employ others. We also need a Parliament that is willing to say that good intentions are not enough. As the bill completes its passage, my challenge to ministers is simple: let us get beyond virtue signalling.”
“At a point at which some other committees might be winding down, as a committee, we are busier than ever, with the scrutiny of the draft climate change plan coming to a head, loads of important subordinate legislation, legislative consent memorandums on other matters, and the latest issues on ferries—to mention nothing about the Railways Bill. If the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill proceeds, I will, of course, respect the will of the Parliament and try to adhere to whatever deadlines are set. However, I want to be crystal clear that it will be a serious challenge to scrutinise the bill in the time that remains, to make good law and to make sure that it is effective. Personally, I do not believe that it is a challenge that we can achieve. 14:37”