Kevin Stewart
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“They don’t want you. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Anas Sarwar: Five years ago, the SNP promised recovery and failed. Is it not the case that the next five years must be about Scotland recovering from John Swinney and the failing SNP?”
“In 80 per cent of disciplines in the national health service, there are no waiting times whatever beyond 52 weeks. That is the Government taking action to improve the circumstances in the national health service. Anas Sarwar talked about a potential change of Government. People in Scotland need to be really wary about all of this.”
“Now, Anas Sarwar turns round and says that everybody was foolish to vote for that man Keir Starmer, whom he had argued that we should all vote for. That tells us that Mr Sarwar is a man of poor judgment that the people of Scotland should not listen to and will not listen to on 7 May. Free Bus Travel 3.”
“[Interruption.] Gillian Martin: There might be groans from those to the left of me, who do not want to grow our economy by investing in new technologies for our energy, but Kevin Stewart is absolutely right: that is a key example of how the constraints of devolution mean that we are, effectively, trying to deliver societal and economic tr…”
“When it comes to the current situation in the middle east, decisions by the Scottish Government to increase the amount of electricity that is generated in Scotland from low-cost renewable sources has put us in a position whereby electricity bills should be a lot lower for people in Scotland, and are a clear example of why those powers sho…”
“The cabinet secretary pointed out in her statement that the SNP Government has increased the amount of electricity that is generated in Scotland from low- cost renewable sources and has put Scotland in a more energy-secure position.”
The complete record
Every one of 413 lines we hold for Kevin Stewart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“Now, Anas Sarwar turns round and says that everybody was foolish to vote for that man Keir Starmer, whom he had argued that we should all vote for. That tells us that Mr Sarwar is a man of poor judgment that the people of Scotland should not listen to and will not listen to on 7 May. Free Bus Travel 3.”
“In 80 per cent of disciplines in the national health service, there are no waiting times whatever beyond 52 weeks. That is the Government taking action to improve the circumstances in the national health service. Anas Sarwar talked about a potential change of Government. People in Scotland need to be really wary about all of this. Anas Sarwar stood here a couple of years ago and argued for a change of Government in the United Kingdom. We got a change of Government, but what else did we get? We got the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which is damaging the economy, and we got the actions that have been taken to remove winter fuel payments; we have had failure after failure from the UK Government.”
“They don’t want you. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Anas Sarwar: Five years ago, the SNP promised recovery and failed. Is it not the case that the next five years must be about Scotland recovering from John Swinney and the failing SNP? The First Minister: One of the things that Anas Sarwar failed to mention in his commentary about the national health service is that, since 2021, we have had the Covid pandemic, which created significant disruption to our national health service. What is the Government doing about that? The Government is ensuring that waits of over a year have decreased for eight consecutive months across new out-patient and in-patient day cases. New out-patient waits of more than a year have more than halved.”
“Kevin Stewart is absolutely right about the way to get that energy security and decarbonisation.”
“When it comes to the current situation in the middle east, decisions by the Scottish Government to increase the amount of electricity that is generated in Scotland from low-cost renewable sources has put us in a position whereby electricity bills should be a lot lower for people in Scotland, and are a clear example of why those powers should be in the hands of Scotland rather than in those of successive UK Governments, which continue to leave Scottish consumers and communities exposed. It would mean that more communities in Scotland would welcome developments in their area, because they would see the tangible benefits in their electricity bills. However, critically, until the cost of electricity comes down, we will struggle to deliver in a lot of those areas in a just way.”
“[Interruption.] Gillian Martin: There might be groans from those to the left of me, who do not want to grow our economy by investing in new technologies for our energy, but Kevin Stewart is absolutely right: that is a key example of how the constraints of devolution mean that we are, effectively, trying to deliver societal and economic transformation with one hand tied behind our back. As we know, and as was reinforced during the scrutiny period of the climate change plan, the price of electricity is crucial to our climate ambitions, including electric vehicle roll-out, industrial decarbonisation and clean heating for houses. I am not the only one who says that; the Climate Change Committee says that electricity costs have to come down. That will also be critical for what the UK Government wants to do to reach net zero by 2050.”
“The cabinet secretary pointed out in her statement that the SNP Government has increased the amount of electricity that is generated in Scotland from low- cost renewable sources and has put Scotland in a more energy-secure position. However, in order to meet the targets in the climate change plan and ensure fair costs for households and businesses, the cost of electricity must come down. What pressure is the Scottish Government putting on the UK Government to change the illogical electricity pricing regime that exists on these islands so that Scots can get a fair deal? Does the cabinet secretary share my view that the best way to ensure cheaper electricity is with the fresh start that independence would provide?”
“That is not because the staff are not excellent—they are excellent—but because there are too few of them. That has meant that we are all having to deal with a backlog of members’ bills now, which, frankly, is not good enough.”
“The staffing complement of the unit was increased by one member of staff at the beginning of the parliamentary session to reflect the high level of demand that was being experienced for NGBU support for the large number of members’ bills in the session. As the member will know, NGBU’s procedural advice and guidance is provided impartially to any member. There are circumstances in which full support is neither provided nor needed. I can go into more detail on that if the member would like, but now I look forward to his supplementary question. Kevin Stewart: I have no skin in this game, because I will not be returning to Parliament after the election. However, I feel—as other members have said that they felt during the session—that we have not been particularly well served by the non- Government bills unit.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consider increasing the resources and staffing available to the non-Government bills unit. (S6O-05645) Maggie Chapman (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The NGBU is a clerking team that is supported by Parliament’s lawyers and external drafters. It provides impartial and confidential support to members of Parliament who are not Government ministers who wish to take forward a proposal for a member’s bill. The unit provides support on a first-come, first-served basis. The corporate body seeks to ensure that, as far as possible, access to the NGBU is provided to members in an equitable way. However, the NGBU is a finite resource and it is also required to support committee bills, private bills and hybrid bills.”
“Serving the people is what the Parliament should be about but, unfortunately, it seems that some folk have forgotten that. That has to change so that the Parliament can truly meet the needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland. My final words are freedom for Scotland and slava Ukraini. 13:02”
“It has been an honour to serve the people of Aberdeen in one way, shape or form for 27 years—13 years on Aberdeen City Council and 15 years in this Parliament. It was a privilege to serve as a minister for seven of my years here and to help shape our country and make it a better place to live in—a task that would be much easier if we had the full powers of independence. I thank all the people of Aberdeen who voted for me over the years, my family for putting up with the stresses and strains that elected office brings, and all the staff who have worked for me over the years. I offer a special thanks to my current head of office, Logan Unwin, and to Doug Daniel, Blair Fulton and David McNay. An MSP is nothing if they do not have good staff to help them serve the people.”
“The spirit of defiance is not just felt on the front lines; it vibrates through every corner of the world where Ukrainians have found a temporary home. In Aberdeen, that spirit is stronger than ever. Through organisations such as the Ukrainian Hub Aberdeen and student societies, displacement has been transformed into a powerful force for advocacy. From the solemn vigils at Marischal Square to the Sunday schools preserving the Ukrainian language for a new generation, the diaspora in the north-east is ensuring that the struggle for freedom remains at the very heart of our community’s consciousness. I am proud of my city of Aberdeen for its efforts in rallying around and helping our Ukrainian friends and neighbours in their time of need, and I am proud of my native city for so many other reasons.”
“I thank Kenny Gibson for securing the debate. This is likely to be my last speech in this place. Last month marked four years since Putin’s full- scale invasion of Ukraine. What was originally dismissed by the Kremlin as a three-day march on Kyiv has instead become a historic example of human endurance. For four years, the Ukrainian people have stood unyielding, proving that the pursuit of self-determination cannot be crushed by imperial aspirations. We must be clear that that resilience has come at a staggering, heartbreaking cost. Casualties on both sides are estimated at 2 million dead and wounded. Despite the grief, Ukraine is no longer seen simply as a recipient of aid. It has emerged as a vital security partner and, as it has reclaimed territory, it has reshaped the future of modern defence through innovation and sheer grit.”
“I appreciate that there are members who find it uncomfortable to talk about suicide in the context of this bill, but that is the reality of what we are facing. That is the practical impact of the bill before us. For the first time in our history, we would be legalising the assistance of somebody who was taking their own life.”
“From a technical perspective, it is not clear how amendment 248 would interact with the exemptions that are set out in section 21A(4). From a delivery perspective, like amendment 247, amendment 248 would place a significant onus on anyone producing materials around assisted dying for the general public to provide the information as set out in the amendment, on which they may not have the required expertise. It could place a significant cost burden on the production of information for the general public around assisted dying. The Scottish Government has no comment on the remaining amendments in the group. 10:00 The Presiding Officer: I call Murdo Fraser to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 247. Murdo Fraser: I will respond very briefly.”
“I begin my substantive discussion of the amendments in the group with amendment 247, which would place a significant onus—and, possibly, cost burden—on anyone who produces materials about assisted dying for members of the public to provide information on which they might not have the required expertise. The Scottish Government has significant concerns about amendment 248. From a legal perspective, the provision would create an offence in relation to the way in which assisted dying was referred to in public communication over and above the offence that is already in the bill. It has potentially very wide reach, as the communication that is intended for members of the public would only have to refer to assisted dying. It is questionable whether that is a proportionate measure.”
“We should recognise the fact that the United Nations has said that our suicide prevention strategy is world leading. I hope that members will not try to conflate the two issues but that seems to be what is happening. I want to ensure, as I am sure the cabinet secretary does, that our suicide prevention strategy remains the best that it can be. Some of this debate is not in any way helpful and will be causing a lot of pain outside the Parliament. Neil Gray: I note the points that Mr Stewart made. I understand the sensitivities and the very strong views that there are on the matter. I rest on the points that I opened with, which I hope reassures him.”
“To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to promote vaccinations to combat measles, in light of reports of recent diagnoses in the NHS Grampian area. (S6F- 04746)”
“Jeremy Balfour: I say to Mr Stewart that, yes, we have a job to do, but the trouble is that, if we decide tonight to deal with that business on Friday, we will prevent people from being able to do their jobs, and that is a really dangerous position for us to be in. 21:32”
“Jeremy Balfour: I do not want to labour the point at half past 9, but I will respond to Mr Stewart by saying that there is a difference between someone having to travel a distance and someone being physically unable to get here because of their caring responsibilities. That is a fundamental difference. I appreciate that there is no ideal solution to this, but I gently ask the Parliamentary Bureau whether stage 3 proceedings could happen on Monday instead of Friday, which would allow everyone to take part in the debate who wants to take part in it. The Presiding Officer: You must wind up, Mr Balfour.”
“I understand what Mr Balfour is saying, but the reality is quite simply that there is no ideal time for some of us who have to travel further distances. That is difficult as it is, and rearranging things again and again is not easy, either. I recognise that the issue presents Parliament with a dilemma, but we have a job to do here. There is the ability to attend virtually, which was not there before, whether folk like doing so or not, and there is also the ability, in circumstances where folk cannot change their caring responsibilities and cannot participate virtually, to use proxy votes. I recognise the dilemma, but we have a job to do.”
“That would add clarity and would be a qualified safeguard that would replace reliance on the co-ordinating medical practitioner’s subjective satisfaction with an independent, auditable check. Whether we are for or against the bill, we all want to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The final assessment would give that reassurance if the bill passes. I hope that the Parliament will vote for my amendment.”
“Although it cannot be completely eliminated, not least because it will often be internal, my amendment would at least provide an element of mitigation at a critically important stage of the process by requiring there to be an independent registered medical practitioner who has not been involved in the earlier assessments to observe a patient at the time that the approved substance is provided. I think that that would provide a safety backstop that would give absolute protection, but would still allow the individual to carry on, if he or she wanted to proceed. The independent practitioner would be required to provide a written assessment that stated that, to the best of their knowledge, the patient was acting voluntarily and without coercion.”
“Jeremy Balfour: I accept what the Deputy First Minister has said, although I still think that we could have taken quite a lot of the bill apart at stage 2, which may have been an easier way to do it. Neil Gray: On the section 30 amendments that I have lodged today, Mr Balfour must acknowledge that the discussions in the Privy Council process concluded only yesterday. Jeremy Balfour: I have made my point and will move on. I turn to amendment 212 in my name. We have had many debates on different issues around coercion, which, by its very nature, is often invisible. It remains the single biggest danger that is associated with the introduction of assisted dying.”
“I watched the debates on the bill at stage 1 and stage 2 and have followed the bill quite closely, and it seems to me that if it has always been clear that there are sections that are incompetent, which we all understood, it would have been a lot more sensible if the Scottish Government and Liam McArthur had lodged their amendments at stage 2 rather than stage 3, so that they could have been debated by the committee. Mr McArthur had a duty to lodge amendments at stage 2 to provide clarity, although he decided not to. Kate Forbes: My understanding is that some amendments were introduced at stage 2 that added to the level of legal incompetence. As we vote at stage 3, we all need to have in our minds that, if amendments are agreed to that make the bill incompetent again, those issues will need to be resolved.”
“I therefore hope that colleagues will understand that, in the seriousness of the circumstances, it is the very least that is required and it is our solemn duty as legislators to ensure that there is the highest possible level of safeguarding in what is literally the critical stage in the process. I hope that Mr McArthur’s reservations can be overcome. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 211. The Presiding Officer: I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 212 and other amendments in the group. Jeremy Balfour: Before I address amendment 212, in my name, I note that I, too, have listened with real interest in the past 30 or 40 minutes to the interventions that have been made by different members.”
“However, he urged members not to support my amendment, because the language that I have used in it is not the same as the language that he has used elsewhere in the bill. I simply say to Mr McArthur and those who are following his voting that, if that is the only reason not to have an added safeguard in the bill, I do not think that it is a particularly strong reason. A bill of this complexity and of such importance could survive if it is passed with wording that is slightly different in some parts from that in others. The main aim of my amendment is to improve safeguarding and guarantees. The fact that my amendment does not use identical language to other parts of the bill does not rule it out in any way.”
“Amendment 211 seeks to replace the current subjective test, whereby the practitioner merely needs to be “satisfied”, with a requirement for a structured, documented in-person assessment to be carried out immediately before provision of the substance. Amendment 211 would introduce a clearer, objective legal standard and would provide for the creation of an auditable record, thereby strengthening safeguards against coercion and ensuring that capacity would be properly assessed at the most critical point in the process. I listened to the member in charge of the bill, Mr McArthur, when he was speaking to his amendments, and I got the impression that he understood the reasoning behind amendment 211 and that, in some ways, he accepted it.”
“If some members are clear in their minds that everything is fine, I respect that and accept that they are entitled to hold that position. However, if I, as an individual, having listened to part of the debate, have concerns, it is legitimate for me to raise them. If other members disagree with those concerns, that is fine—I have no problem at all with that. This has been quite a telling moment in our consideration of the bill, and I think that, when we come to the stage 3 debate next Tuesday, the issue will be rehearsed again. I turn to amendment 211, in my name. It scarcely needs to be stated that the moments immediately prior to the administration of the lethal medication are the single most significant moment in the process and the one that requires the absolute highest level of scrutiny and safeguarding.”
“As I have already said, the UK Government and the Scottish Government have worked at pace to try to address those issues, through the section 30 order and the section 104 provisions. I understand why colleagues have concerns about section 104 orders and the issues that are captured by them— we debated those at length yesterday—but that is what the process is about. Members have an opportunity to vote on the amendments around legislative competence. That is what we did last night, that is what we have been doing this evening, and that is what we should continue to do for the rest of the proceedings. Douglas Ross: That is what we are doing, but I do not think that we should try to stop debate on those issues.”
“Liam McArthur: If it is helpful to members, I point out that, in my intervention on Mr Whittle, I was seeking to clarify matters in response to the Deputy First Minister’s suggestion about the legislative competence aspects of the bill not having been acknowledged at the outset. I have always acknowledged those aspects—that is why I drafted the bill in the way that I did. The convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee was absolutely right—those issues were debated and discussed through the scrutiny process at stage 2, and amendments were lodged, quite reasonably, by colleagues who wished changes to be made to the bill. Those issues now need to be addressed at stage 3.”
“As someone who is very interested in the passage of the bill, I do not want the Parliament—as some other members want it to do—to look back at some point in the future and wonder, “Could we have done this better?” We need to get this right now; we need to be sure that what we are doing is legally competent. Others might disagree with my view, and that is fine, but I believe that, in the course of this evening’s proceedings, there has been a direct conflict between what the Scottish Government has said and what the Presiding Officer has said. If Liam McArthur still wishes to intervene, I will give way to him.”
“The Presiding Officer: I would say only, as I have said previously, that when members have a view on a bill, including whether provisions of the bill raise issues of legislative competence, they have the opportunity during the Parliament’s consideration of the bill to make those views known and to debate them. That is currently the situation in which we find ourselves. Please resume, Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: I am grateful. I will not go too far into what Kevin Stewart was saying, but he said that “Mr Ross” was raising the issues in question. In fact, Mr Whittle started it, and he was followed by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Presiding Officer and the member in charge of the bill. As someone who has an amendment in this group, however, I am also interested in the matter.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I feel that you have given an explanation for your reasoning with regard to stage 1 of the bill, and the committee convener has given her view on what happened at stage 2. The Government has said right from the outset that it was neutral on the issue. We are now discussing wider issues when we are at the amendment stage of stage 3. Surely we should stick to the amendment stage at this moment in time. If there is any discussion to be had about the issues that Mr Ross is raising, that is a matter for the stage 3 debate next week. Could I have a ruling on that, please?”
“Whitehall and the Climate Change Committee think that tenements are the last 2 per cent to be solved, but in Scotland, tenements must be one of the first problems that we solve. If we cannot decarbonise the tenements in our cities, we will not meet our targets—it is as simple as that. We simply cannot wait for a one- size-fits-all UK solution that ignores the reality of Scottish cities. Lower electricity prices will help us to do that decarbonisation. Again, I welcome the fact that the Parliament has set world-leading climate emissions targets, but targets are not results. Results will be seen only if we can reduce electricity prices dramatically, which I think we can do and would do if we were an independent nation. 16:38”
“Anyway, forget about new fields—we should be drilling in existing areas, as the Norwegians are doing. That is another thing that the UK Government is failing to do. I was speaking about transmission charges. They must be changed to reflect the cost of local production alongside regional pricing, which would allow the free market to bring energy-intensive industries back to Scotland. Not only would that revitalise the Scottish economy and lower bills, but it would eliminate the vast carbon dioxide footprint of transporting electricity from Scotland to England. Finally, we must address the elephant in the room: our housing stock. Tenements make up only 2 per cent of the UK’s housing, but in Scotland they represent 25 per cent. In the centre of Aberdeen, which is in my constituency, well over half of the homes are tenements.”
“Kevin Stewart: It is not up to the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to give the go-ahead for Rosebank, Cambo or anywhere else; that is a matter for the UK Government. We have said that the impact on the environment and on energy security has to be considered, and we are not the only ones who have said that. The UK courts have said that the UK Government has to do that, too. I suggest that the UK Government—because, unfortunately, it is in charge at the moment— needs to put together environmental impact assessments and energy security strategies to get that right. I am not against new fields, but we need to consider the reasoning. If those works were carried out, they would show whether there is a need for future development.”
“However, unit marginal pricing is not the only problem. Transmission charges and regional pricing also need to change, because we have the equally absurd situation where the price of clean, green electricity that is generated right here in Scotland is based on the cost of sending that energy to London. The current transmission charging system charges people in Scotland more and people in London less to encourage energy production near the energy demand in London. Douglas Lumsden: I agree that we should be using our own hydrocarbons rather than relying on imported oil and gas. Does Kevin Stewart disagree with his party’s stance against Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields, which would provide hydrocarbons that we can use in this country?”
“Battery storage will be part of that solution and I hope that hydrogen will be part of it, too. However, there has to be a sense of reality here. We need back-up, so natural gas will remain vital for many decades to come. Emma Harper: Will the member take an intervention? Kevin Stewart: Not just now, thank you. That does not mean that we cannot reduce the climate impact of using that natural gas. I give members project Acorn. We need to invest in that, no matter what some of the sceptics in the Parliament say. It is environmental barbarism to halt our production only to import gas from the war- torn middle east or Trump’s America. The carbon dioxide footprint of shipping liquefied natural gas across the Atlantic is obscene. We should also use locally-sourced hydrocarbons to reduce emissions from our energy production.”
“One of the main difficulties, and one of the reasons why we have the highest electricity prices in Europe, is the flawed situation where we tie electricity costs to the price of international gas. It is absolutely daft. The Tories should have got rid of that system, and the Labour Party should get rid of it. For us to get this right and make it right for Scots, who are being overcharged to a huge degree for electricity, that tie needs to be cut once and for all. As I was saying, there is a role for hydrocarbons in our future electricity generation. It is a simple fact that the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. Because of that, our electricity network must have the capacity to power our homes without renewables for up to 10 days at a time.”
“However, it is nonsense to ask Scottish families to decarbonise their lives while charging them a premium that is dictated by the volatility of global fossil fuel markets. We just have to look at yet another American war in the middle east to see the folly of that. However, we also need to be honest about the role of hydrocarbons in our future electricity generation. Stephen Kerr: I would like to read something to Kevin Stewart very quickly: “Evidence repeatedly pointed to electricity prices that are materially higher than those faced by overseas competitors, driven in large part by policy, regulatory and system costs, rather than generation costs alone.” Does he agree with that? Does it not indicate that we are more responsible than the market for the direction of electricity prices? Kevin Stewart: The UK Government is responsible.”
“To put it bluntly, what we need to do to ensure that we meet our climate change targets in Scotland is entirely dependent on lowering electricity bills, in my opinion. If we want people to switch to heat pumps and electric vehicles, the numbers must work for the person in the street. Currently, the numbers are not working. Scots are seeing their bills go up rather than down, and the central reason for that is that the energy market is fundamentally flawed. We have the absurd situation where the cost of clean, green electricity that is generated right here in Scotland is based on the price of imported international gas. That marginal pricing system is a relic of the past. We need to remove the tie to natural gas prices. The previous Conservative Government failed to do that, and the current Labour Government seems unwilling to do it.”
“I welcome the draft climate change plan. However, what has not been said enough today is that, if we are to deliver the change that is required, we must have complete and utter co-operation from the UK Government, because that cannot be done with the powers of this Parliament or this Government alone. I welcome the fact that this Parliament has set world-leading emissions targets, but targets are not results. We must move from what we would like to see happen to how we are going to make that happen, and that “how” is fundamentally economic. Rules, regulations and well-meaning soundbites are pointless unless the people of Scotland see a positive change in their lives and, most important, positivity in their pooches and their purses.”
“Could we please have a little less shouting across the chamber? Members should make interventions instead. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to Douglas Lumsden for giving way. It is important to note that, last night on “Debate Night”, the depute leader of the SNP was explicit that he did not support new oil and gas exploration and extraction licences in the North Sea, and he specifically mentioned Rosebank. The SNP is against it. Douglas Lumsden: Keith Brown let the cat out of the bag on “Debate Night”. We all know that the SNP has a presumption against oil and gas, which he made clear last night. The SNP is not being honest, and it is also not being honest with community groups across Scotland that are angry about the scale of energy infrastructure projects that are sweeping the countryside.”
“Douglas Lumsden: It is not telling people what the push for net zero by 2045 will mean for households. It is not telling people who live in a flat why they will have to pay up to 10 times more to charge an electric vehicle than people who have their own driveway. It is not telling our oil and gas workers that it does not support projects such as Rosebank, which are vital for jobs in the north- east. It is not being honest for the simple fact that there is an election in 63 days. Stephen Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Lumsden: I will give way. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call Mr Kerr, I note that there is plenty of time in hand and there are plenty of opportunities to make interventions, although the decision on whether to take them is for the person who is on their feet.”
“Mr Lumsden has highlighted the issue of cheaper electricity. In order to reach net zero, we need cheaper electricity, but we also need more electricity. That does not need to come from nuclear; it can come from renewables. However, we need a grid to deal with that increased amount of electricity. Does Mr Lumsden support increasing the capacity of the grid? Douglas Lumsden: If only we had an energy strategy, we could maybe look at what we need. We should have a proper energy mix with nuclear, oil and gas and renewables. This Government seems to be putting all its eggs into the one basket of renewables. What we need is cheap electricity, not the much more expensive electricity from the renewables that are proposed. That comes back to the point that the SNP Government is not being honest. Kevin Stewart: You are not being honest.”
“In my 10 years as an MSP, that is how I have always worked: through consensus, agreement and compromise. Those have been my watchwords, and I hope that my record demonstrates that. It is in that spirit that I would like to offer the next Scottish Government some collegiate advice. The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 that we passed will be meaningless on paper if we cannot connect our islands in the first place. In the next session, the Parliament will have to find a way of working together to find long-term solutions to connect every town, village and island in Scotland, because no one and nowhere should be left behind by their Parliament or their Government— and that is especially the case for our islands.”
“In my view, it must and should be underpinned by legislation, removing it from any form of political convenience or expedience. That would move it out of the political cycles in which we are so used to debating in here. We need a complete restructuring of the governance of Scotland’s maritime strategy. CMAL, CalMac and Transport Scotland currently operate in a triangle of confusion, with lines of accountability blurred and decisions about services being made miles away from the communities that they affect the most. Ferries are transport infrastructure, like roads, bridges, airports and trains, and we should treat them as such. I will say in closing, and in response to the words of Ms Hyslop, that I, too, believe in working across the political divide when it is appropriate and when it is necessary.”
“Those are not abstract views but real examples of casework that I have had to deal with over the years. Our islanders have always understood that the weather has not always been—and will not always be—kind to them, particularly on the west coast. However, what adds to their frustration is when cancellations are surely due to technical delays because of ageing vessels. That is where that sense of palpable frustration has come through over the years. It has been tragic to read some of those stories. That is why I believe that we need a rolling 30- year ferry replacement strategy and a port strategy. The reason I mention that in a different tone from that used in the Government’s amendment is that that strategy cannot be at risk to the whims of ministers or changes of Government.”