Miles Briggs
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Angela Constance: It was always going to be the case that the old hospital would continue to be used while the new hospital was being built, which means that important investment is required in that regard.”
“The Sunday Mail reported on 26 April that ministers had failed to sign off on the business case for the new Monklands hospital prior to the election, so it is important that the cabinet secretary publishes the information that Scottish ministers knew during that period and that she explains why there was no statement to the Parliament bef…”
“I am happy to furnish Mr Briggs with further information about the process. When we deal with any full business case, it is important that that is thoroughly examined and scrutinised, out of respect for those who have compiled it.”
“The Nuclear Industry Association estimates that Scotland’s civil nuclear industry could have supported more than 10,000 jobs if the sector had experienced the same growth as has been evident south of the border, in England. The Scottish Government must reflect on the opportunities that the country will miss out on in years to come.”
“Whatever views members may hold on the nuclear power sector, there should be broad agreement that Torness has been one of the most significant economic and industrial assets that our country has ever had.”
“With the ongoing instability in the middle east and the consequent volatility of global gas prices, households and businesses are vulnerable to price shocks. New nuclear energy would put energy back in our own hands, protect us from fossil fuel price volatility and deliver much-needed energy security.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Miles Briggs, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
“That would mirror the inclusive communication duties that members endorsed earlier, and it would guarantee that inspection reports evaluated how well additional support legislation was being put into practice. I imagine that it would be rare for a member not to have an inbox full of correspondence on the need to improve the experiences of young people with additional support needs. Amendments 213 and 220 are incredibly important, because we need the inspector, when inspecting schools and exercising their functions, to “have regard to” those young people and their outcomes. Amendment 214 would add the lived experience of teachers and trainers to the list of matters that the inspectorate must weigh up, whereas amendment 215 would do the same in relation to support staff who work with learners who require additional help.”
“That would make findings more coherent and follow-up support more effective. Amendments 212 and 219 would ensure that the inspectorate paid heed to the national priorities for school education that ministers might set from time to time. That would strike the right balance. The chief inspector would remain operationally independent, but inspection activity would be aligned to agreed national objectives, such as closing the attainment gap and improving participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Amendments 213 and 220 would require the chief inspector to consider the “needs and interests” of children and young people and of all other learners who “require additional support”.”
“In light of the cabinet secretary’s comments, I will not move amendment 210. Amendment 210 not moved. Section 33A—Working with others The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 17 is entitled “Chief Inspector: duties when exercising functions”. Amendment 211, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 319, 212, 320, 213 to 215, 215A and 216 to 220. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Inspection earns credibility when it reflects the real world of education—its strategic priorities, its diverse learners and the people who teach and support them every day. The amendments in the group would embed those perspectives in the chief inspector’s statutory duty. Amendment 211 would tighten the obligation on the chief inspector, when exercising their inspection functions, to work with other bodies in collaboration, rather than there being parallel effort.”
“Amendment 1 would therefore reflect the new terminology in existing provisions in relation to section 3, quality assuring the processes that additional establishments have to put in place to support the assessment of qualifications, particularly for those with additional support needs. I move amendment 1.”
“15:30 Amendment 76 would ensure that that newly introduced term covers existing legislation for children and young people, along with other learners with additional support needs for learning. Amendment 76 is a definition of “educational support needs”. It deliberately uses a new term but defines it as having the same meaning as “additional support needs” under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and “support needs” under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. That is because it might be confusing to start using those terms to mean something broader in this bill when they are already well understood and have a meaning in their respective contexts.”
“In the interests of brevity, I will try to speed up my comments during the rest of the afternoon. I was pleased to lodge this suite of amendments following stage 2. Amendments 5, 1 and 76, in my name, would improve the bill. Amendment 5 would require qualifications Scotland to prepare and publish guidance to support those with educational support needs in undertaking examinations. Amendment 5 would introduce the term “educational support needs” into the bill instead of “additional support needs”, because it is important that children, young people and adult learners with support needs for learning are all covered by these and other provisions in the bill.”
“However, that is a matter for the appropriate authorities, and not for ministers, to comment on.”
“We also made available to the sector £25 million, of which £22 million was directed to Dundee earlier this year. We will continue to work with the university. Finally, in response to the question about the next steps, plan B is—rightly—a matter for the university. However, the Scottish Funding Council is working to support the university, which needs to come forward with a long-term strategic plan to allow the university to thrive into the future. There was a final point in relation to potential criminality, which I addressed in interviews last week. I have heard some of the challenge from Wendy Alexander about the culture in the organisation, which is also spoken about in the report. The Scottish Funding Council and Professor Pamela Gillies have assured me that they found no evidence of criminality.”
“If he considers the totality of the recommendations, they are, in the main, quite rightly a matter for Dundee university. However, I have been clear today that ministers want to assure ourselves about approaches to governance. Mr Dey and I met the chair of the Scottish Funding Council only yesterday. He was very clear that, had the university adhered to the good practice guide that exists for all higher education institutions in Scotland, there would not have been an issue. As I identified in my statement, that is not what happened. However, we want to assure ourselves of what more we might do to strengthen governance in that respect. Mr Briggs has identified a £20 million funding gap that I am not familiar with. The funding that I announced today is the totality of the ask from the university to date. That has been met.”
“Given Wendy Alexander’s allegations at the weekend, what police investigation might be undertaken into criminality at the university? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Briggs for his questions and I share his concern for staff and students. I am conscious that we are tight for time, but he mentioned a number of factors, and I will address each in turn. I have not explicitly touched on the wider external factors, but there is no doubt that the changes to international immigration rules—which were, of course, introduced by Mr Briggs’s party— have hampered our institutions. We know that that was a factor in Dundee, and that is set out in Pamela Gillies’s report. Brexit has also been a factor for Dundee—again, the report addresses that. Mr Briggs talks about drawing a line, but that is not the Government’s position at all.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and I express my concern for staff and students at Dundee university at this time. When universities across Scotland are experiencing serious concerns about their future financial sustainability, I do not think that it is wise for us to say that we want just to draw a line under the mistakes that have been made at Dundee university. The cabinet secretary’s statement shows that, even after the steps that the Government has taken, there will be a potential £20 million black hole in the university’s finances over the next two years. If a bailout of £20 million is needed over the next two years, what will be the Government’s plan B to fund the gap?”
“It is clear to me, in my dialogue with the university sector, that a more rational approach to immigration, rather than the folly that was started by the Conservative Government and is now being reinforced by the Labour Government in the UK, would help our university sector to navigate its way through these challenging times. A more sensible approach to immigration would help us to attract international students and support our university sector, which remains world class. The Presiding Officer: We move to general and constituency supplementary questions. The more concise we are, the more members we will be able to take.”
“From the comments that university principals made at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, it is clear that the university sector in Scotland has become overreliant on international students. Given the increasing global uncertainty, what assessment have the First Minister and the Scottish Government made of the financial exposure and risk that our institutions face? The First Minister: These issues are discussed with the higher education sector. I met senior figures from Universities Scotland to discuss those questions a few weeks ago, and my ministers are engaged on that question at all times. As well as global uncertainty, the other issue that has to be borne in mind is the United Kingdom Government’s approach to immigration policy, which is not helping one little bit in all this.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the eligibility criteria for rapid cancer diagnostic services, including the rationale for them usually only being available to those over the age of 18, in light of any unique challenges faced by children and young people being diagnosed with cancer. (S6O-04815)”
“However, I hope that its overall policy aims—of increasing the use of Gaelic and furthering opportunities to learn it— will ensure that a vibrant part of Scotland’s cultural landscape will exist for generations to come, and that we will all look back at this point as giving us an opportunity to take the language forward. Scottish Conservatives will support the motion at decision time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Michael Marra to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. 17:36”
“The areas of linguistic significance that the bill creates will be important in enabling us to see where the language is being developed. Scottish Conservatives have a long and proud record of supporting the Gaelic language, from the late 1990s, when John Major’s Government made positive reforms, until the present. I place on the record the contributions of a number of my colleagues, both past and present—Liz Smith, Donald Cameron, Ted Brocklebank and Sir Jamie McGrigor—who, over a long time, have made distinguished contributions to supporting the Gaelic language in the Parliament. On its own, the bill will not turn around the decline in the Gaelic language.”
“On a visit to Cnoc Soilleir, on South Uist, with the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I saw at first hand how the community hub not only helps to promote and celebrate the community’s Gaelic cultural heritage but provides a multigenerational learning space to save and take forward the language. That provides a great vision for how the public and private sectors can come together to do some of the policy work. It is clear that, in the coming years, we will continue to face financial pressures. However, I hope that we will have cross-party understanding that resources should rightly focus on making the greatest possible progress on stabilising and growing the language in the areas where it is most widely spoken. A figure of 20 per cent has been put on that in the bill.”
“I very much welcome the positive work that I have been able to undertake with the Government and with campaigners. I thank Wilson McLeod and Dr Gillian Munro, who are here today, for their help and support with those amendments and for their work over many years to support and promote Gaelic-medium education. Future pathways to speak and learn Gaelic are now part of the bill, and I hope that those pathways will succeed where, previously, we have not seen the number of people speaking and learning Gaelic pick up. I hope that the development of the areas of linguistic significance has the potential to not only stabilise the language but help to create a positive localised environment to give people the confidence to use their language and to further develop structures around speakers.”
“I hope that the opportunity in the bill for the institution to move forward as a national centre for Gaelic language education and culture can be secured as soon as possible. I hope that we will see as soon as possible the positive progress on that that the Deputy First Minister has outlined and said that she wants to be made. I am pleased to have managed to work cross party to take forward amendments on Gaelic- medium education and on simplifying the process for parents and carers to request GME. It is important that local authorities can then accommodate and progress those requests. I fully acknowledge the financial pressures that councils face, but if we are going to save the Gaelic language and improve the uptake of speakers, it is important that that is taken forward.”
“In saying that, I acknowledge that Wales has been proactive in protecting the Welsh language since the 1930s. Significant progress has been made in Wales to protect and develop the language. That includes the target that the Welsh Parliament has set to have 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050, and other targets relating to the use of the language. The Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Bill also establishes a statutory body—the national Welsh language learning institute—and, in that regard, I very much welcome the amendments to this bill in the name of Willie Rennie that were agreed to in relation to Sabhal Mòr Ostaig. I visited many years ago with Liz Smith, and I was hugely impressed by the work that the institution was undertaking. There is also probably no better view outside a lecture theatre—perhaps only here in the capital.”
“There have been some positive developments, but we need to be honest that the language continues to be vulnerable and that it must be nurtured if it is to survive and thrive. Twenty years after the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, we must take stock of the policy frameworks, including in relation to Gaelic language plans, Gaelic-medium education and initiatives to raise the profile of Gaelic in various sectors, given that they have not achieved the outcomes that we all, including members in previous parliamentary sessions, hoped that they would. I very much associate myself with Michael Marra’s remarks about targets and our ability to judge where progress is needed and where resources need to be focused. We can look at the example that Wales has set.”
“I start by thanking the many individuals and organisations who have engaged with me on the bill and the Deputy First Minister and her officials for their positive engagement. I joined the Education, Children and Young People Committee last October, so I very much came late to the party in relation to the bill. However, I hope that the amendments that were agreed to, to simplify Gaelic-medium education requests, and some of the other measures in the bill will provide a strong framework that will ultimately help to develop future pathways to learn to speak Gaelic, especially for the young speakers of tomorrow. After 25 years of the Scottish Parliament, I do not think that we can look back and see the progress that many of us would like to have seen to not only protect but develop the language.”
“Amendment 46 to 49 moved—[Ross Greer]— and agreed to. Section 23—Extension of assessments to early learning and childcare Amendment 12 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to. Section 25A—Review of status of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 9 is on Sabhal Mòr Ostaig. Amendment 4, in the name of Willie Rennie, is grouped with amendments 5 to 10.”
“Kate Forbes: The amendments in this group are important off the back of my stage 2 amendments to introduce the process for requesting all-Gaelic schools assessments. I am happy to support Ross Greer’s amendments 45 to 49. The importance for minority languages of having a separate space from the dominant language is well recognised in language planning terms. For school settings, that can assist with fluency, confidence and a whole-school ethos around Gaelic. In order to support delivery of that, I welcome Ross Greer’s amendments to ensure that there is wide access for parents and children to the process. I strongly agree with many of his remarks. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 45. Ross Greer: I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 45. Amendment 45 agreed to.”
“They also seek to extend the consultation requirement to include children and parents of “children resident or attending school” in the authority area. Again, that includes pre- school children and their families. Given that I raised the issue at stage 2, I should mention that the definition of “parent” that is used in the provisions is the one used in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which includes guardians and others with parental responsibilities, and carers. The aim of the amendments is to have an open process in which those with an interest can make a request, have their request assessed and make representation. All-Gaelic schools are good for Gaelic and good for Scottish education overall, and the amendments would give more parents and children the opportunity to have access to that process. I move amendment 45.”
“Amendment 45, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 46 to 49. Ross Greer: At stage 2, we added a process to allow parents and carers to request that councils assess whether GME could be provided locally. As we have just heard, Miles Briggs did much of the work on that. At that point, I flagged that the language that we agreed to in that amendment gave that option only to parents of school-age children when the biggest value would be from allowing parents of pre-school children to make such a request. It would be far better for a child to start in GME from primary 1 or, even better, from nursery, than to have them start in an English- medium school only to move a few years later, once a GME school was open. The amendments seek to extend the ability to make that request to the parents and carers of pre-school children.”
“Having said at the outset that I thought that our first group of amendments on areas of linguistic significance was one of the most critical parts of the bill, I would also say that this proposed new section to the Education (Scotland) Act 2016 is one of the most radical parts of the bill, because it responds to a concern that parents have consistently expressed about how to ensure that they have access to Gaelic-medium education. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite Miles Briggs to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 11. Miles Briggs: I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 11. Amendment 11 agreed to. Section 22A—All-Gaelic schools: viability of establishment The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to group 8, which is on all-Gaelic schools requests.”
“I hope and expect that the amendment would be able to contribute to the growth of Gaelic-medium education as a recognised and successful sector in our Scottish education system. I move amendment 11. Kate Forbes: I thank Miles Briggs for those amendments. With Miles Briggs’s amendments, there will be two robust pathways in place: the process for requesting the provision of Gaelic- medium education, which his amendments would do much to clarify and improve, and the process for requests for local authorities to consider the establishment of an all-Gaelic school in an area, which I introduced at stage 2. The two processes are consistent while still recognising the different factors that are involved for education authorities. Together, they allow for the sustainable development and growth of Gaelic-medium education in an area.”
“The authority would also have to decide to secure the provision of GMPE and GME early learning in the designated areas unless, having regard to those considerations, “it would be unreasonable to do so.” Again, that wording is maintained from the existing full assessment procedure. Because my amendment 11 now incorporates the changes to the process that are in section 23 of the bill, amendment 12 would completely remove that section, as it would no longer be required. I am confident that amendment 11 addresses the practical issues that have been raised by parents and the Gaelic community and that its provisions would be an improvement on the current process, which many parents have been frustrated with.”
“A request would be made to assess the need for Gaelic-medium primary education or Gaelic-medium early learning, and the authority would have to designate a relevant assessment area and “consider” its provision of Gaelic-medium education and the level of demand in that area. The authority would then have to make “an assessment of the need” for Gaelic-medium education. As is the case under the current full assessment process, there would be various considerations for the authority to take into account in the making of a decision—for example, the availability of premises and staffing. The authority would also have to “publicise arrangements” for parents, children and others “with expertise or an interest” to make representations, and it would have to take those representations into account when making a decision.”
“It would remove the requirement for parents to provide evidence of demand for GME from other children and their parents, and it would therefore be for the local authority to consider the wider demand in their local area. The process would start with a request to the education authority. I was pleased to support the Scottish Government’s amendment at stage 2 to introduce a process for requests for all-Gaelic schools. Amendment 11 would extend the right to make requests to Comann nam Pàrant and Bòrd na Gàidhlig to bring the process into line with all- Gaelic school request processes.”
“Although the Gaelic community welcomed the introduction of the process that is in the 2016 act, some concerns have emerged over the years about how that process works in practice. There are two key issues. First, the parental request must be “accompanied by ... evidence that there is a demand for GMPE from parents of other children who are ... in the same year group”. That can be hard for parents not only to source but to administer. Secondly, the assessment is in two stages. The initial assessment proceeds to a full assessment only if there is evidence of demand from at least five children. Parents have found those two stages of the process to be frustrating, and the threshold of five children might not be appropriate for many geographical areas. My amendment proposes a single-stage assessment process.”
“I am pleased to have worked with the Deputy First Minister to lodge these amendments, which would change the process by which requests can be considered for access to Gaelic-medium education. I also welcomed the opportunity to work on them with the wider Gaelic community, which has experience of the process, and I am grateful for the advice that it has given me. Amendment 11 would make key changes to the process that was established by the Education (Scotland) Act 2016. I will go on to explain some of the detail, but, broadly speaking, the amendment would simplify the process for parents and local authorities. It would extend the request process to parties that were not previously included and it would mean that a request could be made not just for Gaelic-medium primary education but for Gaelic-medium early learning.”
“Moreover, I hope that the cabinet secretary, in responding to the debate, can take forward a number of suggestions and provide answers to the following questions. First, why it is taking so long for a decision to be made by ministers, who have had the report for over a year now? Secondly, will she agree to a cross-party meeting to try to get the project taken forward as soon as possible? Thirdly, can she give an assurance that a decision will be taken before the end of the current session of Parliament? Finally, I thank all those members who are going to speak in the debate, and I look forward to hearing their contributions. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 19:09”
“SNP transport ministers have allowed this key transport project to stall. The sad truth is that despite those ministers—many of whom I have met with over the period—saying that the upgrade of Sheriffhall is a priority for Government, it has not been taken forward. Even when the money has been committed and consultations have taken place, the stalling has continued. I have a lot of time for the cabinet secretary, but I know that members across the chamber will share my frustration at the lack of progress to deliver the upgrade to the Sheriffhall roundabout. I hope that tonight’s debate will get the project back on track and get the upgrade the green light— finally—so that we can take forward this most important strategic transport investment for the Lothian region.”
“Sheriffhall’s current design, whereby local and through traffic collide at a single level, is a recipe for danger, and accidents and near misses are frequent. The proposed flyover should separate those flows, reduce congestion and improve sight lines. I am grateful to the many constituents who have signed up to my campaign and have expressed to me their concerns and ideas. I acknowledge that the Sheriffhall junction is not the only problem on the A720; the entire road is inadequate for our growing capital city, and a wider review is needed. It is clear to anyone who uses the road that we need significant investment at the Gogarburn and Newcraighall roundabouts, too. A truly strategic transport system would also improve the sustainability of transport options as part of that wider investment.”
“Worse still, £6.4 million has been spent on consultants for designs that, six years afterwards, remain on paper. That is public money—my constituents’ money—-that has been wasted, while the road remains clogged. More than 75,000 vehicles already use the bypass every day, and Transport Scotland’s modelling predicts that it will be being used by 102,000 vehicles a day by 2037. East Lothian and Midlothian are both home to major house-building projects. As more and more homes are built, the pressure on transport infrastructure will only grow, so delaying the upgrade of the Sheriffhall junction risks making the situation worse for all those involved. We must not forget that there is also a safety issue to be considered at the heart of this.”
“A 2016 report, “Europe’s Traffic Hotspots: Measuring the impact of congestion in Europe”, by INRIX, a transport information company, identified the bypass as the most congested trunk road outside London, with four of the UK’s worst bottlenecks located on the A720. The report predicted that the 455 traffic hotspots in Edinburgh, of which the bypass was the worst, would cost the Scottish economy as much as £2.8 billion by this year alone. As I have mentioned, the initial budget for the project was £120 million, but, with inflation, it is now likely to exceed that and will reach a figure between £200 million and £300 million. We do not know how much it will cost overall; indeed, my colleague Colin Beattie asked about this last week, and did not get a response. We need to hear that from ministers.”
“I go back to what I said in my previous debate on the subject: Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland form one of the key growth areas of our economy, and we need to ensure that there is investment in the right infrastructure—in this case, the Sheriffhall junction. Gridlocked trunk roads are bad for the economy and create a poor impression for inward investors and those who want to visit our area. Lothian has the fastest-growing population in Scotland; indeed, it will account for 84 per cent of Scotland’s predicted population growth over the period to 2033. Edinburgh alone is growing at nearly three times the rate of the Scottish average, and its economy reflects that. However, if we want to sustain that growth, we must ensure that our infrastructure is future proofed.”
“Furthermore, the committee expressed its embarrassment at having been made to look ineffectual by ministers who keep delaying a decision on the Sheriffhall upgrade, which is—let us remember—the region’s key flagship transport project. As a Lothian MSP, I continue to be contacted by exasperated constituents, who cannot understand why such an obvious infrastructure problem has not been resolved. However, it is not only an Edinburgh issue. As my colleagues will confirm, and as the joint committee has highlighted, the A720 is integral to the economy of not only the surrounding south-east region but the whole of Scotland.”
“However, after nearly 20 years, and more than £6 million in consultation fees, we have seen no further progress. The frustration is felt, as I know, by MSPs from all parties who represent the area in Parliament; by businesses in the city and in neighbouring communities; and, as we saw at the meeting of the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal joint committee just last week, by the commuting public. I know that representatives of all parties who sit on the joint committee are really frustrated, and the committee’s members were— rightly—outraged when Transport Scotland refused even to attend its meeting.”
“The Greens have branded the proposed flyover “a spaghetti junction”, but it is unclear whether they think that traffic sitting stationary in traffic jams on the bypass, with drivers now opting to cut through the city centre to avoid that traffic, is better for our environment than cleanly flowing traffic that is confined to the outskirts of the city. Nonetheless, a public inquiry on the matter in 2023 pushed ministerial approval back even further. A decision was expected a year ago, yet it remains, as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has said, “under active consideration”. Twelve months without a decision is not consideration—it is dither and delay. Last week, I asked the cabinet secretary whether Scottish National Party ministers would finally commit to the project before the election in 2026.”
“Seventeen years ago, in 2008, an upgrade to the junction was first flagged as a priority as part of the Scottish Government’s strategic transport projects review. It then took 10 years for the Government to commit funding to the project. In the seven years since that funding was committed, however, absolutely nothing has been done to alleviate the needless waste of time and money that commuters face every day, as well as the pollution that is caused. In 2020, a Scottish Green Party review brought the little progress that had been made to a screeching halt when it objected on environmental grounds.”
“A solution, in the form of a flyover to separate local and through traffic, was agreed as part of the 2018 Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal, a £1.6 billion partnership between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. With an initial allocation of £120 million, the project promised that there would finally be smoother journeys and safer roads for Lothian and the surrounding region. Sheriffhall has been steeped in controversy from the very beginning. Forty years ago, when the roundabout was being constructed, many people—including people who worked on the original planning of the road, whom I have met— made it clear that a roundabout was not appropriate for the bypass and would cause congestion.”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have red lights flashing up on my screen here—sadly, that is very much like the Sheriffhall roundabout. I thank colleagues across the chamber for supporting my motion and allowing the debate to take place. As those members who were in Parliament in 2018 will know, this is not my first speech on the Sheriffhall roundabout—or indeed on the Edinburgh city bypass; I have been campaigning on the issue throughout my entire parliamentary career. The Sheriffhall roundabout, for those unfamiliar with it, is the only at-grade junction on the Edinburgh city bypass, and it is a notorious bottleneck where commuters who are heading to work, people who are visiting family members and loved ones and businesses that are transporting goods regularly face gridlock.”
“In this case, I have yet to receive the advice on the reporter’s recommendations, but the timetable for decision making and dealing with any implications for the budget process can be made thereafter.”
“This week, I launched a campaign so that people across Lothian can make their voices heard about this notorious junction. After 20 years of discussion and the spending of more than £6 million on consultation fees, we are no further forward. Motorists across Lothian have had enough of the delays. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the project will be given the green light before the next Scottish Parliament election? Fiona Hyslop: Although we are keen to see the improvements being delivered as soon as possible, the statutory right for individuals to have their say on proposals cannot be set aside. I am sure that the Conservatives would want the statutory processes for a number of projects to be concluded quickly.”
“I know that having support from the management team in school is fundamental to supporting a classroom teacher in responding to challenging behaviour. The member raises an important issue, and I will address it accordingly with ADES. Nursery Closures (Aberdeenshire Council) 5.”
“A freedom of information request by the Scottish Conservatives has revealed that teachers in Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire have requested self-defence classes. It is totally unacceptable that we are living in a country where our teachers are asking for self-defence classes. What is being done by the Government? What will be done by management to ensure that, if a teacher requests that a pupil is not in the classroom, they will not be brought back into the classroom? Jenny Gilruth: I am sympathetic to the member’s points. He is alluding to management in schools. We need to be mindful of the position of local government as the employer and the position of the Scottish Government. I am happy to take the issue that he has raised to the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland.”
“I move amendment S6M-17669.2, to insert at end: “; continues to be concerned at the levels of violence being reported in schools, including unacceptable physical and verbal attacks and threats being experienced by teachers and the wider school community; notes the significant concerns over high levels of work-related stress being reported by teachers and the health and wellbeing of the profession; calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a national coordinated education workforce plan, including data on additional support needs (ASN) and projections on workforce capacity for additional support workers and classroom assistants across local authorities as part of the ASN review; recognises concerns that absence cover is not being consistently applied across schools and local authorities, and supports the better provision of access to resources and training, including the delivery of a new model of support alongside the NHS Education for Scotland trauma informed practice training on neurodivergence and autism.” 15:06”