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 8 of 9.
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Gillian Martin: I will, and will then continue with my speech. Kevin Stewart: I would like to see much more emphasis on hydrogen power generation, as the cabinet secretary well knows. Scotland has a great boon when it comes to hydrogen power from renewables. Does she see hydrogen as being a major way forward in terms of base-load? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for the intervention, cabinet secretary. Gillian Martin: I think that hydrogen is going to have many uses—not least in decarbonisation of transport and heavy goods vehicles, and in industrial decarbonisation. Kevin Stewart is right to point to it. It can potentially even be an energy source for domestic use.”
“We all want to see a just peace, and in order to achieve that it is in Scotland’s interests that we support Ukraine and its people’s right to freedom, democracy and independence. History shows us that appeasing aggressors expands conflicts and prolongs wars. Does the First Minister share my view that no one who believes in democracy can afford to appease Putin and Russia’s aggression? The First Minister: I agree with that point. The threat to our democracy and to the values that have underpinned our society is real if we are not able to address and defeat Russia’s aggression. That is the very real issue that we face as a society today, and it is so important and fundamental to the choices that we face.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it and its partner organisations are taking to tackle antisocial behaviour in city centres. (S6O-04359)”
“I would say that it was a pleasure to follow Douglas Lumsden, but I am not so sure about that. I note that, if Douglas Lumsden wants to spend money wisely, he should think about not lodging so many apparently artificial intelligence- generated questions, which cost £100,000, a sum that would be much better spent on public services. [Interruption.] Colleagues—and I do mean colleagues— Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Kevin Stewart: I will take your intervention, yes.”
“You cannot just will the ends; you must will the means, cabinet secretary. Kate Forbes: Will Michael Marra take an intervention?”
“Having opposed all those revenue-raising measures of the UK Labour Government, the First Minister then told the Parliament on 14 November that “the UK Government should have increased income tax”— [Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 13.] to the same level as in Scotland. The Fraser of Allander Institute had to set the First Minister right. Kate Forbes: Will Michael Marra take an intervention? Michael Marra: No, thank you, madam. Its analysis pointed out that “if the UK Government increased income tax ... the deduction to the block grant would be larger and the Scottish Budget would be worse off.” Surely the man who negotiated the fiscal framework understands how it works. Labour boosted the budget by £5.2 billion, and John Swinney’s income tax plan would have cost Scotland £636 million. It is fiscal ineptitude of the highest order.”
“Will Michael Marra give way? Michael Marra: No, thank you, sir. If the SNP had ideas on how to change the direction of our NHS, our schools and our economy, we would have seen them by now. It has long since lost its way. Take the budget position as a whole. SNP members demanded additional spending at UK level of a scarcely believable £70 billion, yet, as we know, they have opposed every means of raising any of that money in taxation—£45 billion of revenue raisers were all opposed. You cannot just will the ends; you must will the means, cabinet secretary. Kevin Stewart: Will Michael Marra give way? Ross Greer: Will Michael Marra take an intervention? Michael Marra: No, thank you, sir, and no, thank you, sir. It is a negative fiscal adjustment of £115 billion. It is not credible—it is ludicrous.”
“I understand members’ frustrations. We live in difficult times, and we want to see as much investment as possible flow through GB Energy. If that frustration is tempered, it is by the appalling legacy that the previous UK Government has been left by the Westminster counterparts of the Scottish Tories sitting across the way in the chamber. That is the reality. I understand the frustrations of the legislative process, but let us be clear about getting on with the transition and backing GB Energy. 17:07”
“I agree that we need to reap those benefits. We also need to keep the workforce. I recognise what Mr Johnson said about the legislation not being passed, but we have already seen pledges being rolled back on. That is of deep concern to the people of Aberdeen, the north-east and elsewhere. Will Mr Johnson use his good offices to talk to his colleagues in London and get them to tell us exactly what all this means? Daniel Johnson: I do not need to talk to them in London. I talk to them here, because they are up here regularly. I was talking to Michael Shanks just this morning, and I will be talking to colleagues over the weekend. I talk to Ian Murray regularly. Believe you me—Scottish Labour wants to get this done, as do our UK Government colleagues. If members want to see a plan, let us get on with establishing GB Energy.”
“I wrote to the secretary of state in January, urging him to reverse the decision to freeze rates. As yet, I have not heard back.”
“Can the minister comment on what effect the United Kingdom Labour Government’s freeze of local housing allowance rates is anticipated to have on efforts to get families out of temporary accommodation and to help to end homelessness in Scotland? Paul McLennan: I am glad that the member asked that question. The UK Government’s decision to freeze local housing allowance rates will impact on thousands of low-income private renters in Scotland, as it widens the gap between housing support and market rents. It will also make it harder for families who are experiencing homelessness or are in temporary accommodation to move into the rented sector. The last freeze, which lasted three years, resulted in an extra 20,000 households not having adequate rent support, with an average shortfall of £1,500 a year for those on universal credit.”
“I express our solidarity with them and indicate that the Government will do all that it can to ensure their safety and security here in Scotland. Cairngorm”
“The Scottish Government has supported Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of Putin’s illegal aggression on Ukraine. Will the First Minister confirm that Scotland’s support for Ukrainian people living here will continue? Will he make it clear that the Scottish Government continues to condemn Russian aggression and that we stand by the people of Ukraine’s rights to freedom, democracy and self-determination? The First Minister: I associate myself entirely with Kevin Stewart’s comments on the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Russian aggression needs to be repelled, and the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine must be asserted. We as a country—through cross-party support—have done a lot to welcome Ukrainian refugees to Scotland.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the impact that the United Kingdom Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions will have on Scottish public services and the economy of Scotland. (S6O-04336)”
“Scottish councils are forced to send Scottish council tax straight to Rachel Reeves in London because of the employer national insurance tax rise. Millions are going straight from the Scottish purse to the chancellor in London. Let us be clear that we are not asking for Westminster’s money— we are asking for our own money back. 16:33”
“It is no wonder that the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association has welcomed the news of national insurance tax breaks for venture capitalists under Labour, but the other Keir—Keir Hardie—must be spinning in his grave at that new Labour direction. Labour’s national insurance tax hike is not only a tax on work and jobs but a tax on Scotland herself. Labour is firmly refusing to refund increased employer national insurance for local councils, doctors, dentists and social care organisations. All in all, £700 million is being drained from Scottish public services and going straight to Rachel Reeves in London. That is millions not getting spent on the NHS, schools, roads and a just transition.”
“It is no surprise that half of businesses have said that they will cut jobs, and others have said that they will cut the hours of those who still have a job. Labour did not need to do that. It could have raised taxes on big business and the wealthy— that is, certainly, what many folk out there thought that Labour stood for in the past. Big business and millionaire donors, such as Lord Alli, own the Labour Party lock, stock and barrel. Millionaire donor Lord Alli paid for the shirt on Keir Starmer’s back, and some people would say that millionaires and billionaires get what they pay for. It will surprise no one that it has just been revealed that venture capitalists in limited liability partnerships will not pay employer national insurance at all.”
“During the election campaign, Labour promised ordinary folk that their taxes would not go up, but, when it came to the crunch, Labour kept its promise to the richest and sacrificed ordinary folk on the altar of Westminster power. Labour’s election pledge not to increase taxes on working people will go down in infamy as so sleekit that only the morally bankrupt would dare to stand up and defend it. Labour’s national insurance tax hike is a none-too-subtle stealth tax on working folk because, although it does not come out of their pay packet today, it comes out of the pay rise that they will not get tomorrow. It is not only a stealth tax on wages but a tax on jobs and on work because, unlike with a tax on profits, big business can avoid national insurance simply by getting rid of workers.”
“We need to make sure that we get effective accountability and scrutiny for any process that we put through this Parliament, but the constructive dialogue that we have seen so far is critical. The whole Parliament should support the advent of GB Energy, given the difference that it will make. We live in an era in which we are seeing climate change denial, which is not acceptable. We need to work together. We do not have to agree on everything, but we need to support new investment in our country, because— The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Boyack. Sarah Boyack: —our constituents need that, and they need it now. 17:20”
“I wonder whether Sarah Boyack can understand why the majority of committee members would have preferred clause 6 of the bill to ensure that the Scottish Government is consulted and ideally would have to give its consent in relation to GB Energy and devolved matters? The UK Government has not conceded on that point, although it was clearly the committee’s preference. The Presiding Officer: Please conclude, Ms Boyack. Sarah Boyack: I have looked at the committee’s discussions. Intelligent questions were asked of the acting cabinet secretary and the energy minister, Michael Shanks. The fact that we are here today with what I hope will be future clarity about those issues is critical. The points that Edward Mountain made are important.”
“If we look at our Nordic neighbours or at other European countries, we see many more municipal and co- operatively owned heat and power networks. We have not had those yet in Scotland and we need more leadership. It is crucial to empower our communities and spread local knowledge. They are ready to go but we are not getting enough from the Scottish Government, so that constructive approach between Governments is critical. The £3.3 billion that is coming from the national wealth fund for community projects and investment is absolutely critical, but we need to see delivery on the ground. Bob Doris: Will Sarah Boyack give way? Sarah Boyack: I will take a brief comment from Bob Doris. Bob Doris: I will be very brief.”
“If members look at the Official Report of that meeting or at what Juergen Maier has said, they will see that GB Energy will incentivise new and emerging technologies such as marine renewables and floating offshore wind, so that we maximise the opportunities for a range of new clean energy and heat supplies and, critically, can support supply chains in Scotland and investment in green manufacturing. We need a more joined-up approach, so it is not an exaggeration to say that GB Energy is absolutely essential to the future of the UK and Scotland, delivering new jobs in our communities and working for the planet. I will go back to the work that is being done by the two Governments. It is important that our Governments are serious about creating new jobs and tackling the climate emergency, but our local authorities are absolutely critical too.”
“Will the member give way? Sarah Boyack: No, thank you. I am actually going to make a positive comment about one of the member’s contributions. When Michael Shanks spoke to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, he highlighted that this is a different way of doing things in this country and that it will ensure clean, secure power, with public ownership and investment being key to ensuring that all our communities have a stake in the future of our energy supply. That is surely something that this Parliament must support. Making sure that we have energy security that will benefit our communities and tackle the climate crisis while creating new jobs is crucial.”
“Our proposals will help to make the system more responsive to the Government’s four priorities, including tackling the climate emergency. Taken together with the work on skills planning, the changes can help to deliver more green skills. For example, the bill will establish for the first time a statutory framework for apprenticeships in Scotland. That is anticipated to facilitate different and more transparent ways of funding apprenticeships. It could be used, for example, to shift the emphasis on to more or different apprenticeships that have a focus on achieving net zero. Kevin Stewart rightly referenced colleges and universities, but I reiterate that we will have a mixed apprenticeship offering, in which private training providers will have a role.”
“Now is the time to significantly ramp up investment in green skills, and reforming the post-school learning system is key to that investment in Scotland’s economic future. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s recent announcement on funding for colleges to support the offshore wind skills pipeline. Can the minister comment on how simplifying the skills funding body landscape will further help colleges and universities to deliver the green skills agenda? Graeme Dey: The post-school education and skills system is already supporting the transition to net zero, but we can and must go further. The system must be able to respond at greater pace and with greater impact to meet the challenges and opportunities that the transition to net zero is placing on it. That is one reason why reform is a must and the changes are important.”
“Funding for an AI supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh was pulled by the Labour Government. It has followed that by announcing that it will be investing in AI projects elsewhere, including in Oxford and Cambridge, as the minister said. Given that the Labour Government now seems to avoid investing in Scotland, what discussions has the minister and his colleagues had with it on the issue? Can he say any more about how the Scottish Government is working to grow the tech industry here?”
“Instead, they choose to sit on their hands and not negotiate or to constantly vote against things. We are here to serve the people, and passing the budget will show that we are doing so. 15:38”
“These are the things that the budget brings to the people of Scotland: it brings NHS investment up to a record level of £21.7 billion. It increases the local government settlement to a record £15 billion. It will restore that universal winter heating payment, as I mentioned earlier, and it will provide £768 million for affordable homes in our country. It triples the investment for offshore wind to £150 million, creating the jobs of the future, and it delivers a £158 million uplift for education and skills. It will develop the necessary means to scrap the two-child cap. These are the great things that this budget delivers. It is a pity that some folk have forgotten that they were elected to this Parliament to serve the people and deliver for the people.”
“It means an NHS that is free at the point of use and seven social security payments—including the Scottish child payment—that have no equivalent anywhere else in the UK. Going further, there are moves to eradicate the two-child cap and lift 15,000 children out of poverty, and there is the move to reintroduce winter fuel payments, which Labour cut for tens of thousands of people across Scotland. Beyond that, we have new policies coming into play, partly down to the negotiations that have taken place, including a £2 bus fare cap pilot that I hope will be carried out in the great city of Aberdeen and in Aberdeenshire. I have already written to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to express my wish that the pilot goes ahead in my own fair city of Aberdeen.”
“If Mr Marra were as keen to ensure that that investment was spent wisely as he says he is, he would have engaged, along with his Labour colleagues, in helping to shape this budget for Scotland. Instead, they chose to sit on their hands. They chose to abstain. They chose to raise and wave the white flag. That is Labour in Scotland. They had the ability to back a budget that continues the social contract with the people of Scotland, which has been the SNP approach since we came to government in 2007. What does that mean? It means free prescriptions, free university tuition and free school meals. It means free childcare for three and four-year-olds, as well as eligible two-year-olds. It means free bus travel for 2.3 million people.”
“Mr Marra said that Labour “moved decisively”—it moved decisively to abstain. Labour members’ forebears must be wondering what is going on, because the new Labour mantra is, “We’ll keep the white flag flying here.” They have no ability to offer anything to people out there. They do not have the ability to deliver anything through the budget, because they did not take up the opportunity to do so. Michael Marra: Does the member not recognise, as his colleague Michelle Thomson perhaps neglected to, that £5.2 billion of additional funding for the Scottish Government has enabled the many measures that I am sure he will go on to highlight in the positive aspects of his speech? That is what Labour has contributed to the budget. Kevin Stewart: Scotland is not a charity; we are getting our own money back.”
“Last week, a good friend and former Aberdeen City Council colleague, Muriel Jaffrey, passed away. She served on Aberdeen City Council for 18 years, and she firmly believed that each of us who has the honour to be elected should always do our very best in delivering for our constituents’ needs. I therefore thank the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and Ash Regan for doing what they were elected to do: to stand up and deliver for their constituents. They have done a good service through the negotiations that they have been involved in to deliver for people right across Scotland. It does not surprise me that the Tories are going to vote against an SNP Scottish Government budget because, let us be honest, there is very little that they will vote for. The disappointing thing is the Labour Party, as always.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of Unison. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that mental health absences among ambulance crews have risen in Aberdeen and other parts of Scotland. (S6T-02326)”
“I assure Kevin Stewart that organisations that are based in Aberdeen and north-east Scotland will receive support. In Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, 13 organisations— including six that have not received core funding from Creative Scotland previously—have been successful. That includes Belmont Community Cinema, which pleases me particularly.”
“The funding boost to Aberdeen Performing Arts, Citymoves Dance Agency and peacock & the worm, among others, will not only sustain existing institutions but support new voices and emerging talent from Aberdeen. I am particularly pleased to see new funding being allocated to the much- loved Belmont Community Cinema. Will the cabinet secretary assure the Parliament that cultural funding will continue to benefit all of Scotland? Will he join me in celebrating the cultural offering that Aberdeen and the north-east gifts to our nation? Angus Robertson: Organisations across the whole of Scotland will benefit from the awards. Thirty-five per cent of all organisations that have been awarded funding work nationally, no matter where their base is.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recent CBI report, which reportedly suggests that businesses are preparing to “cut staff and raise prices”. (S6F- 03764)”
“I hope that, at the end of the process, members will vote for a financial proposal that is very well put together. 15:54”
“We were going to spend money on preventative measures: we were going to spend money on short-term breaks for people and we were looking at how we could ensure that housing was changed to stop crises happening. Quite frankly, many people have put the kibosh on a lot of that good work through what they have said. I hope, and I am sure, that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the minister will do all that they can to ensure that the voices of lived experience are listened to, and that we drive forward the change that is required. I am not convinced, though, that we will not need further legislation in the future on all that. The budget will invest in our health and social care system and it is a budget that has brought parties together to put people’s priorities first.”
“The budget will deliver a record £2 billion increase in front-line NHS spending and take overall health and social care investment to £21 billion. That includes an increase in capital spending power of £139 million. Michael Marra: Kevin Stewart recognises the need for investment in health and social care, but the Finance and Public Administration Committee was told that the plan for a national care service that he brought forward, which he has just talked about, would have cost £3.9 billion. Officials produced that statistic. Does he seriously think that that is what we need? Kevin Stewart: I do not agree that it would have cost £3.9 billion. I say to Mr Marra and other sceptics that, in social care, we spend huge amounts of money on crisis. The bill was going to change that.”
“We are still in the long shadow of the Covid pandemic and the healthcare needs that have stemmed from it. To make matters worse, the UK national insurance hike will have a devastating impact on the NHS, local government and the third sector. We will meet those challenges only if we address them head on, and the budget will do that. Public services are the bedrock on which our communities thrive. They form the foundation of a better Scotland. A strong NHS ensures that we have access to good-quality healthcare when we need it. Well-funded social care allows our most vulnerable citizens to live with dignity and respect, and an excellent education system provides our children with the skills and knowledge for them to succeed in life.”
“I think that we will see in the very near future the kind of change that was proposed initially, because that is what people out there actually want—and, as I have always said, we are here to represent people. The budget is set against some unprecedented challenges. The past two decades in the UK have been tumultuous, to say the least. We have had economic turmoil from the collapse of banks, the disaster of Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, the gilts crisis of Trussonomics and now the debt disaster of Reeves and Starmer, and we have had austerity throughout. Let us be clear that the challenges that our public services face are significant. As our population ages, our health and social care needs increase.”
“Will he take this opportunity to apologise for botching the early stages of the national care service, which has cost this country £30 million and done untold damage to people who are waiting in our care system? Kevin Stewart: No, I will not, because the national care service debate has created better pay for care workers in this country. We see care workers having better terms and conditions: the money that has been spent has achieved that. I am disappointed about where we are because vested interests, including political parties in this Parliament, have tried to put the kibosh on something that people who receive care, their carers and many people on the front line wanted. I will not apologise.”
“I congratulate the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and the negotiators for the Greens and Liberal Democrats on reaching consensus. One thing that I have taken from the speeches thus far is that some folk have got it all wrong, as per usual. Mr Marra talked about Labour’s new direction. The reality is that Labour has nae direction: direction came from the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. By coming together at the table, they have all achieved good for the people of Scotland and have brought forward some of the priorities that they have talked about for a while. Craig Hoy: Kevin Stewart talks about people getting it all wrong.”
“I personally believe that the chair should be someone who either has or represents lived experience because I think that they would be more able to hold everyone in the system, including Government, to account. It would also be a clear statement of our intent to take steps towards the human rights-based approach that we all want to see within social care if we absolutely enshrine the voice of lived experience at the heart of the advisory board. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I say again that we need succinct questions and answers to match.”
“We are here to represent people, and the people who rely on care services and carers—the voices of lived experience—wanted to see structural change, so I am disappointed that that element is being removed from the bill. The minister said that she will establish an NCS advisory board with an independent chair, ideally one with lived experience. I believe that it is essential for that chair to have lived experience, so can the minister assure me that the chair will be someone who has lived experience and who can hold to account those who have vested interests and who are against change? Maree Todd: I absolutely agree with the member that it is really important for the chair to be independent of local and central Government and of the strong institutional voices that we hear most loudly in this debate.”
“What it said is absolutely crystal clear: “the women affected are owed compensation.” Those are not my words but the words of Rebecca Hilsenrath, the chief executive of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. What is the point of an independent ombudsman if the Prime Minister and a Government and a party simply ignore it when they do not like the answer? It is time to do the right thing. It is time to compensate the WASPI women. 15:51”
“Many in the Labour Party today still think that Tony Blair can do no wrong, so it is not surprising that one of his acolytes, Keir Starmer, has blocked compensation to WASPI women—maybe to protect the tattered legacy of his mentor, Mr Blair. However, that cover-up and denial cannot continue. The UK Government must accept that the independent ombudsman has ruled that Westminster failed the WASPI women and that the UK Government should pay WASPI women compensation. We should not be having this debate. We should not have to call on the UK Government to do the right thing by WASPI women. There should be no debate. The entire point of an ombudsman is that it has the final and impartial say on the matter. The ombudsman has had its say.”
“It was so bad that, by 2007, with only three years to go, the DWP considered telling the ombudsman that it should prepare for complaints but decided not to do that because the ombudsman might ask it to actually do something. Finally, in April 2009, just months before the first WASPI women turned 60, the first letters went out. This is not just a story about a Westminster establishment that does not care about women; it is a story of political ineptitude from start to finish. From the first report in 2004, under Tony Blair, until 2009, there were six different cabinet secretaries for work and pensions in the Labour Government, and not one lifted a finger for the WASPI women.”
“Downing Street knew that it had to do more in 2004, but it did not bother. A cynic could point out that a general election was just around the corner and that a letter arriving on every doorstep in the UK telling women that they needed to work for five more years would hardly have been a vote winner. Two years later, in 2006, the UK Government had another chance to do something when yet another survey found that too many women still thought that their pension age was 60. What did the UK Government do? It dithered and delayed. It could have written to the women in 2006 but, no, it started a feasibility study to report back in 2008.”
“Paragraph 489 states: “We have explained our thinking about where on our severity of injustice scale the sample complainants’ injustice sits. We would have recommended they are paid compensation at level 4 of the scale.” There we go—we have a remedy from the ombudsman that is absolutely crystal clear. Labour needs to get its finger out and pay it. It is as simple as that. I want to look at some of the other detail of the scandal—and it is a scandal. It is important to look at the detail of what the ombudsman said about UK Governments and where they have gone wrong. In 2004, six years out, Westminster had research showing that information about pension age changes had not reached the women who needed it most. What did the UK Government do with that research? Did it tell the women? No—it ignored it and buried it.”