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 5 of 9.
“Amendment 192 disagreed to. Amendment 283 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 283 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 25, Against 81, Abstentions 0.”
“A representative of that church contacted me and other members across parties to bring about an amendment of that nature. If there are unresolved issues, there are still opportunities, in my view— even if they are not written into the bill—to look at those issues, to make sure that properties are not sitting empty when they could be used. That goes back to the fact that we have a shortage of homes up and down the country, and we should make use of every possible lever to use the homes that are already in existence. I will leave my remarks there, and I press amendment 79. Amendment 79 agreed to. Amendment 80 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]— and agreed to. Amendment 192 moved—[Edward Mountain]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“I also thank colleagues who have engaged with Marie Curie and have been fully supportive of what those amendments seek to achieve. As the cabinet secretary laid out, when people who have a terminal illness experience an eviction, that is an added pressure on what not only they but their families are dealing with. It is good that we are working together to add some compassion to the bill. I thank everyone who has worked with Marie Curie to make that possible. I will be brief and then will close my remarks. On amendment 283, in my name, which relates to religious properties, and on the points that have been raised by colleagues Jeremy Balfour and Willie Rennie, I still believe that the issue is unresolved. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to continue to engage with the Church of Scotland.”
“I understand that Katy Clark’s intention is to ensure that certain repossession grounds cannot be used spuriously; however, in such a circumstance, it would already be open to a tenant to apply to the tribunal for a wrongful termination order. Similarly, on amendment 289, which would introduce a new offence, I assure Katy Clark that there is an existing offence through the Scottish Tribunals (Offences in Relation to Proceedings) Regulations 2016, which could result in imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or both. For all those reasons, I ask members to support Meghan Gallacher’s amendments 79 to 86 and Mark Griffin’s amendment 286 but not to move or support any other amendment in the group. Meghan Gallacher: I thank members, as I do not believe that anyone has spoken against my amendments in relation to terminal illness.”
“16:15 Similarly, amendment 287 would require ministers to carry out a review of repossession grounds across all the main tenancy regimes, including the social sector. I have not heard any calls for a review for the social rented sector, and I do not believe that such a review would be appropriate. The amendment would also require us to carry out reviews on types of tenancies that are scarcely used. I absolutely understand the intent behind amendment 288 in the name of Katy Clark but, unfortunately, I cannot support it. On a similar amendment at stage 2, we set out that any additional restrictions and measures in relation to wrongful termination need careful consideration, which should be done through our review of repossession grounds to ensure the right balance.”
“Our current framework already provides protection from unreasonable eviction in those circumstances. That is because, in Scotland, all grounds for eviction are discretionary, and the tribunal can take into account all the circumstances in the case. However, I agree that there are concerns about ECO4, which is a UK Government scheme. I understand that we asked UK ministers last year to make changes to strengthen those safeguards, but they were not able to do so at the time. I would therefore welcome Mark Griffin’s support in seeking to have those changes made. Amendment 286 would introduce a requirement on ministers to carry out a review of repossession grounds under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. However, as I have said, I am committed to a review of all eviction grounds, and I welcome members’ engagement in that.”
“For the same reason, I have significantly greater concerns about amendment 284A, which would require ministers to make regulations regardless of the need for and the impact of any changes. For those reasons, and some other technical problems with the amendments, I cannot support them. In relation to amendment 37, I am unconvinced of the need for an unlimited on-going statutory requirement for a five-yearly review of protections. Ministers can already carry out a review of eviction protections in the social and private rented sectors whenever it is considered appropriate to do so. Mark Griffin’s amendment 285, which he has explained, seeks to address concerns about a small number of landlords acting unreasonably after receiving ECO4 funding. I remain of the view that the amendment is not necessary and I cannot support it.”
“Maggie Chapman’s amendments 44 and 50 are alternatives to amendments 7 and 25, so the same issues apply. I will skip forward as quickly as I can. Amendment 284 would enable ministers to require payment of removal costs if a tenant was being evicted from a residential property. It is not clear from the amendment who would pay for that, but I think that, by implication, it would be the landlord. When a similar amendment was lodged at stage 2, we committed to considering the need to assess the impact of payments for removal costs. Although amendment 284 would not compel ministers to make regulations, I am concerned about supporting a provision in relation to which the justification has not been fully understood and if it is not clear.”
“Màiri McAllan: I will, of course, keep a close eye on those matters, and particularly on how the courts and tribunals use those existing powers to delay the enforcement of an eviction at any time of the year. It is worth noting that seasonal impact is set out as one of the specific factors that can be considered. There are two other reasons why I do not think that amendments 7 and 25 are necessarily appropriate. First, there are other times of year when particular strain means that protection could be argued for, such as other religious periods, exam periods and so on. Secondly, with a ban of that type, we would risk creating a flood of cases come April rather than having the ability to deal with matters throughout the year. Therefore, I cannot support those amendments.”
“It has been stated that the amendments in relation to a winter eviction moratorium might constitute a disproportionate control on the use of a landlord’s property. However, we managed to do that during the course of Covid; Ms Chapman said that it was during the cost of living crisis, but it was mainly for Covid. It has also been said that the existing powers in the bill already allow for consideration of a delay year round, with discretion for the courts and tribunals to apply that as they deem reasonable in the circumstances of each case. Will the cabinet secretary continue to monitor all of that, so that we get it right for people across the board?”
“That is not straightforward, and we are still considering those issues and the responses that we have received from across the sector.”
“As at stage 2, a number of amendments have been lodged that seek to stipulate that regulations should include specific exemptions from rent control. Before I turn to the other amendments in the group, I confirm that I have already set out that it is my intention that, where appropriate, mid- market rent properties and build-to-rent properties will be exempt from the rent control measures in the bill. In light of the housing emergency, it is vital that we prioritise expanding housing stock in Scotland, and where exempting certain categories of property is appropriate, that will support supply in those areas. Our recent consultation included questions on how mid-market rent and new properties that are built for rent should be defined in any exemption.”
“16:45 Amendment 164 would remove references to exempt properties from modifications to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 that determine the application of rent controls to private residential tenancies. That would substantially alter the application of rent controls to capture every private residential tenancy in a rent control area without exception. I fully acknowledge Maggie Chapman’s opposition to rent control exemptions, but I simply cannot support the amendments. It is crucial that we carefully define the scope of any exemptions so that they can serve their intended purpose of balancing the rights of landlords and tenants. We will continue to work with stakeholders to refine the definitions in the coming months, with a view to introducing regulations, subject to parliamentary approval, after royal assent.”
“Amendment 157 would remove the power of the Scottish ministers to define by regulations properties that are exempt, and other amendments would variously remove references to “exempt properties”. The removal of that power would make it impossible to exempt any private rental property from rent control, which is key in ensuring that there can be a balanced regime of controls. Removing the power would impact on the ability of the Scottish ministers to impose rent control at all. We must be able to demonstrate that that can be done in a necessary and proportionate manner that balances the property rights of landlords with protections for tenants.”
“That is important in ensuring that tenants are protected from attempts to circumvent any rent control measures in the bill, and it is also important for landlords to have absolute assurance on their status. As part of our consultation, we asked questions about what the process might look like. My amendments will give ministers the power to set out the process in regulations once we have had the opportunity to fully consider the responses to our consultation from across the sector, and I ask members to support them. Together, Maggie Chapman’s amendments 138, 153, 154, 156, 157, 163, 164, 172 and 267 to 269 would remove any possibility of properties being exempted from rent control measures in the bill. She has been quite clear that that is her intention—she does not support exemptions.”
“We remain concerned that investment in the mid-market rent sector would cause it to grow at the expense of genuinely affordable homes, such as those in the social rented sector. Exempting the mid-market rent sector from rent controls will not help us to tackle the housing emergency or our homelessness crisis; it will only exacerbate the crises that we face. Tenants and renters need clarity. A no- exemption principle would provide that clarity. I move amendment 138. Màiri McAllan: My amendments 65 to 70 and 122 will provide the Scottish ministers with the power to set a process by which a property is confirmed as an exempt property. The intention is to enable tenants to be notified about the exempt status of a property and to verify that a property is exempt from rent controls.”
“From a Green point of view, there is no reason in principle why a build-to-rent landlord should be exempt from rent controls, and there is no reason in principle why a build-to-rent tenant should not have the same package of tenancy protections as any other tenant. We want consistency for tenants, regardless of the type of property that they live in. The argument for the exemption holds only if build-to-rent accommodation is seen as a positive form of housing development compared with other types. We contend that it is not viewed so positively across the board. We also cannot support exemptions for the mid- market rent sector. Even so-called mid-market levels are unaffordable to many. The Scottish Government’s own housing strategy identifies inconsistency in how mid-market rents reflect affordability.”
“I suggest that Ms Chapman and other colleagues might wish to visit build-to-rent developments in the likes of Liverpool that have been built by very socially aware companies and that involve mixed housing, including semi-detached and detached homes. Again, we should not be painting everyone with the same brush. I would welcome such investment in Scotland. Maggie Chapman: I thank Kevin Stewart for that intervention, but, again, we disagree. Renters tell us that, in their experience, properties that have been supported by build-to-rent schemes are high end and expensive. They do not sit well with the desire for mixed community living.”
“At the end of the day, there is a lot more work UK-wide than there is purely in Scotland, for the sole reason that we have already made a lot of the interventions and investment. It is about ensuring that there is a fair share of work right across the”
“The wellbeing of Scottish manufacturing and Scotland’s industrial economy is a key priority, which is why the Scottish National Party Government has fought tirelessly against the closure of Grangemouth oil refinery and worked to secure the jobs at Alexander Dennis. Can the cabinet secretary speak to existing UK Government policies and the negative impact that they have on local job retention in Falkirk and Larbert and on job creation across Scotland? Kate Forbes: We want a strong manufacturing sector to drive Scotland’s economic growth, and we want to maximise the opportunity for Scotland’s industrial sectors. I talked about the number of buses that might be in the pipeline as we make the just transition, particularly from diesel to net zero. It is about protecting the talent right now.”
“Section 33—Vulnerable parties Amendments 50 to 52 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. After section 36B Amendment 53 moved—[Liam Kerr]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is now closed.”
“However, there is a presumption about when personal conduct of a case should be prohibited, which makes specific reference to the criteria that are laid down for deeming a person vulnerable. As a result, the bill needs to be amended to reflect the changes that were made at stage 2. Amendment 49 does that. Amendments 50, 51 and 52 correct a minor error that is contained in a stage 2 amendment, where reference was made to the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 when it should have been to the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. Amendments 50, 51 and 52 correct that error. I move amendment 49. The Deputy Presiding Officer: No other member has sought to make a contribution on this group. Does the cabinet secretary have anything to add by way of winding up? Angela Constance: No, thank you. Amendment 49 agreed to.”
“Amendment 108 disagreed to. Section 30—Vulnerable witnesses The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 15 is on special measures in civil cases. Amendment 49, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 50, 51 and 52. Angela Constance: The amendments in this group are technical and correcting. The bill lays down criteria for a person being deemed to be a vulnerable witness in a civil case. At stage 2, amendments were agreed to add to those criteria in order to include people who are applying for a civil protection order or are seeking damages for relevant behaviour, such as sexual assault or domestic abuse. When a person is deemed vulnerable, that generally flows through into the rest of the legislation.”
“For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 27, Against 80, Abstentions 7.”
“Russell Findlay: Sitting on the Criminal Justice Committee for years, I tried my very best to get to the bottom of what the Government meant when it talked about trauma-informed practice, but it could never define it. If Kevin Stewart wants to enlighten all of us on that, I would be delighted to hear it. I press amendment 108. 18:30 The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 108 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Will Russell Findlay give way? Russell Findlay: I will finish my point. The Lord President is, of course, in charge of the judiciary, and amendment 108 has sought deliberately not to meddle in his independence. It is about respecting what Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid have said about the very real problem of the weaponisation of the criminal and civil courts, by abusers. Kevin Stewart: I am surprised that Russell Findlay has said what he has said about trauma- informed practice. Training is available in trauma- informed practice. Ministers have taken that training, and members of committees including the Social Justice and Social Security Committee have completed that training. Before anyone submits amendments on such issues, it would be wise to take that training and learn what trauma- informed practice is all about.”
“I move amendment S6M-18780.2, to leave out from “acknowledges” to end and insert: “regrets that the previous UK Conservative administration left the asylum system in a state of collapse; recognises the progress made by the UK Labour administration to clear the backlog of asylum claims, and believes that the failure to tackle the challenges facing Scotland’s local authorities, public services and housing system, for which the Scottish Government has devolved responsibility and has received record levels of funding from the UK Labour administration, is the root cause of the housing emergency.” 16:19”
“Such delivery and leadership were completely absent from any Conservative Government during the past 14 years, and absent from any contribution that I have heard from members on the Conservative benches. Here in Scotland, after 18 years of SNP failure, a Labour Government would prioritise restoring our roads, hospitals, schools and communities. Further, it would ensure that it served all Scots— new and old—well, rather than using them as a rhetorical device, only to forget them when their political capital runs out. We must do better. Scottish Labour will work with everyone who is committed to delivering for our communities, and we will never allow division or dangerous political point scoring to detract from the real work that is needed in that area.”
“Will Mr Griffin give way? Mark Griffin: Sorry—with four minutes, I cannot give more time away. While bins go unemptied, potholes appear and Glaswegians are living on the streets, the SNP council quietly gives massive pay-outs to department officials. The SNP Government talks about providing a welcome, but it does not back up that welcome with the financial decisions and long-term support that are needed to turn it from just words into action. It is only Labour that has taken steps to fix the problem. Since the Labour Government was elected in the UK, the number of asylum decisions has doubled and the backlog has fallen by 24 per cent in just 12 months. A new independent body has been announced to speed up asylum appeals and ease pressure on the courts.”
“The union debt loss—not dividend—is truly the gift that keeps on giving. Yes: thanks to the union loss—not dividend—Scotland is currently too poor and too wee, and, yes, we would be stupid to stay in the union any longer. Now is the time for us to leave the sinking ship. Now is the time for independence because, with the powers of independence, we can grow our population, grow our economy and unshackle ourselves from the union debt loss—not dividend. 15:28”
“The day Scotland entered the union we did not have a single penny of debt to our name but, the morning after, we were saddled with a share of Britain’s— or should that be England’s—£15 million debt pile. And, boy oh boy, did the British debt pile keep growing after that. Three centuries later, and the British national debt mountain now stands at £2.9 trillion. That is £41,572.17 of debt for every single man, woman and child. That is the true union loss: a mountain of debt racked up by Westminster in Scotland’s name. Yet again the Tories are correct: Scotland is too poor—at least, we are poor in the union, with that £41,572.17 of debt for every single person. It is only getting worse. Starmer and Reeves, the Thatcher tribute act, have driven British debt repayments higher than even Liz Truss could manage.”
“Austerity, which makes people think twice about having more kids. There is also the two-child cap. Imagine banning women from having children. Imagine punishing people for trying to grow their family. The Tories are truly the anti-family party, and Labour is no better. It does not stop there. From Brexit, sending our young European workers fleeing, to the current pantomime of both Westminster parties dressing up in a vile parody of Farage—or, as one of his former teachers said, “fascist” Farage. It is almost as if Westminster wants the Scottish population simply to wither away, leaving nothing but a barren wasteland called North Britain. The union loss does not stop there. The Tories have the temerity to mention the deficit.”
“Once again, we are having a debate in which the Opposition says that Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid to be independent. In this shameful, unfair union, Scotland is too wee in population terms, Scotland is too poor and Scotland would be incredibly stupid to stay in the union any longer. When Scotland was dragged into this union, our population was just over one fifth of that of England. Now, three centuries later, the population of Scotland is less than a tenth of that of England. That is the true union dividend—or rather, loss, which is what it really is. The Tories are indeed correct: Scotland is too wee, and all thanks to their beloved union. Their campaign against the people of Scotland is still on-going. Scotland is in desperate need of new families and more children. What is the Westminster answer?”
“Let us do right and put to bed the wrongs of Beeching, which led to the closure of the lines from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. 16:21”
“However, as usual, it is those who rely on public transport in those areas who are hit the hardest—85 per cent of the people who would like to take the bus often decide not to because of the long journey and unreliable bus services. That is a major blight on the folk of the north-east. Improved public transport connectivity would be a major force in improving the economic opportunities for everyday folk in our corner of Scotland. Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary to consider the major advantages that are now at play as a result of the rail lines in the Borders and Leven, as we have heard, and to think about doing the same for the north-east. Listen to the Campaign for North East Rail and the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce.”
“Most importantly, it is about the moral and economic imperative to ensure that no community is left behind. Last year, the Campaign for North East Rail and Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce produced the “Buchan Sustainable Transport Study”, which provides a compelling evidence base for reopening the Aberdeen to Peterhead line. There are a number of reasons why that is an imperative. The lack of a railway means that lorryloads of beer and truckloads of fish often share single-track roads with folk commuting to work and folk taking their kids on the school run. Improving freight transport would also make a vital contribution to the economic regeneration of the area.”
“That future has to be the reopening of the lines from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh. Thanks to the better together alliance of the Tories commissioning the Beeching cuts and the Labour Party wielding the actual axe, Peterhead is the largest settlement in mainland UK without a railway station, and Fraserburgh is the second largest. That was a terrible injustice and it is an unacceptable status quo. The Campaign for North East Rail is a grass-roots movement driven by engineers and local advocates who have put forward a clear and well-researched blueprint for a revitalised railway network. The campaign is about more than trains; it is about regenerating our coastal towns, supporting our vital fishing industry by enabling the shift of freight from road to rail, and unlocking the economic potential of our region.”
“The project will see 20 minutes knocked off journey times for Aberdonians heading to Glasgow or Edinburgh. That ambitious project will ensure those improvements. Network Rail has carried out ground investigation work across the entire track, and the defunct bridges at Ironshill and Lunan mill have been demolished. There is much work still to be done, including vital improvements at Aberdeen railway station and the construction of freight loops to manage mixed traffic. When that work is completed, the north-east will enjoy those shorter journey times to the central belt. Having discussed the past improvements on the line from Aberdeen to Inverness and the present improvements on the line from Aberdeen to Glasgow and Edinburgh, it is vital that we do not lose sight of future improvements for the railways in the north-east.”
“For travellers heading north-west from Aberdeen to Inverness, the Aberdeen to Inverness improvement project has resulted in significant gains for passengers. On the track front, signalling has been enhanced between Insch and Aberdeen, and the line between Inverurie and Kittybrewster junction has been redoubled. With regard to upgrading old stations, the station at Forres has been rebuilt and the platforms at Elgin and Insch stations have been lengthened. Laurencekirk station was reopened. Last but not least, the reopening of Kintore station after 60 years was a critical milestone and has been a great success. The station now sees 28 ScotRail trains stopping daily. Improvements for points south of Aberdeen are currently under way, thanks to the Aberdeen to central belt enhancement project.”
“Under an SNP Government, ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper have been brought back into public ownership and peak-time rail fares have been abolished. Since 2007, the Scottish Government has invested more than £11 billion in Scotland’s rail infrastructure. The past 20 years have been good for Scotland’s railways, and the SNP Government’s work in supporting our railways and our railway-going passengers has been immense. However, I hope that I will be forgiven if I focus on Aberdeen and the north-east rather than the whole of Scotland. The past 20 years have seen improvements in north-east rail in three key areas: the upgrading of track, the renovation of old stations and the opening of new stations.”
“I am more than happy to take the points that Mr Stewart has raised today back to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in our discussions about how the bans are operating in practice.”
“Mobile phones affect us all when it comes to how we engage and speak to one another, whether we pay attention in debates or what we do when we sit in committees—I am not immune from that. As a teacher, I undertook the practice of gathering mobile phones. It can be challenging and can lead to conflict. The national guidance sets out a consistent national approach that empowers headteachers to ban mobile phones should they see fit. The legislative power to do so does not currently sit as a ministerial power in Scotland, but I take on board Mr Stewart’s point. I see that the Presiding Officer is gesticulating. Lots of schools take different approaches to banning mobile phones. The school that I last taught in has a very effective policy in place.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I put on the record that I am very sorry to learn that Mr Stewart will be standing down at the end of the parliamentary session. He will be sorely missed by the Scottish National Party group. The use of mobile phones in our schools was an issue that was highlighted by the behaviour in Scottish schools research, and the teaching trade unions have done a great deal of work on the impact that mobile phones can have in our classrooms. I have often reflected on the use of mobile phones in the chamber, and the member might have a view on confiscating MSPs’ phones in order to improve all our behaviour. There is something in the mix to consider about how adults behave and how we expect young people to behave.”
“I am sure that, like me, many members will have had mailbags full of various commentary about the challenges, disruption and bad behaviour that are caused by mobile devices in classrooms. I have recently been watching a Korean drama in which mobile phones are collected at the start of every lesson. A few months ago, I visited a private school in my constituency where they collect mobile phones at the beginning of the day. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that we need to look at all that very carefully? We need to create some kind of universality, because our schools have divergent policies on mobile phones. Would it not be best for teachers just to collect them at the start of each lesson in order to avoid such challenges, disruption and bad behaviour?”
“To support the sector at large to tailor its courses, the Scottish Funding Council has established a curriculum transformation framework that allows colleges to use their funding more flexibly to respond to local needs and demands. The college tripartite alignment group heard this morning that there has been a fair degree of interest from institutions in taking that opportunity. I hope that an enlightened and forward-looking college such as NESCol would be among those. On the point about priorities, I have had extensive conversations with colleges, including this morning. It is clear that a large number of colleges are seeking to change their offering and to align it to the changing needs of their local economy. We will do everything that we can to support them to achieve that.”
“The 2025-26 budget allocates £656.2 million in resource funding to colleges, which is a 2 per cent uplift on 2024-25. Kevin Stewart: North East Scotland College is adapting to ensure that we have the people to meet the needs of business and the energy transition. Does the minister share my view that funding to colleges also needs to adapt to recognise the changes that are taking place so that we meet our net zero ambitions to achieve a just transition and to build a workforce for the future? Does that mean that ministerial priorities and what ministers say to the Scottish Funding Council also need to change to meet those needs? Graeme Dey: NESCol is an excellent example of a college adapting to the net zero transition. It collaborates closely with regional and national employers to meet the needs of the energy transition.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tailor funding to colleges to ensure that they are providing courses to meet the needs of businesses in an ever changing world. (S6O- 04865) The Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans (Graeme Dey): The Scottish Funding Council is responsible for allocating funding to colleges in line with ministerial priorities, as set out in the SFC’s annual letter of guidance. Colleges are responsible for determining their own operational decisions, including course provision. I expect colleges to engage with employers and local partners to understand skills needs and to continuously plan and adjust their curriculum to meet the emerging needs of the economy. The post-school education and skills reform programme aims to make further improvements.”
“The First Minister: The route to addressing Mr Stewart’s question lies in the approach and legacy of Christina McKelvie, who acted with dignity, empathy and respect when dealing with all communities in our society. As a long-serving colleague of mine, Mr Stewart will know how much we were all influenced and affected by the skills and attributes of Christina McKelvie, who demonstrated how empathy, dignity and respect could be deployed in community relationships in our country. I want to ensure that, through the Government’s actions, we learn from that experience and approach so that we succeed in addressing the substantial question that Mr Stewart has put to me.”
“I also welcome today’s statement. The First Minister said in it: “An apology is not the end of the conversation; it is, I hope, the beginning of a new conversation.” I have every faith that his Government will carry on that conversation and listen to the Gypsy Traveller community. I had the great pleasure of serving with Elena Whitham and Christina McKelvie on the working group that came up with the Gypsy Traveller action plan in co-operation with the community. Christina McKelvie was immense at bringing folk together. What can the Government do to bring folk from the Travelling community and from other communities together to have conversations, to foster understanding, to defeat prejudice and to create friendships?”