John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 14.
“John’s gospel tells us that Andrew was previously a disciple or follower of John the Baptist—no connection to me—and John told them that Jesus was the lamb of God. That was a reference back to the Jewish scriptures—we call them the Old Testament—when God had led the Jews out of captivity in Egypt. They had to sacrifice a Passover lamb and were protected from the final plague by the lamb’s blood. Andrew becomes the first follower of Jesus, but he immediately finds his brother Peter and introduces him, too. Andrew says to Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and thus he becomes the first person to recognise who Jesus really was: the son of God—that is, he was God—and the new leader of the Jews whom they had been looking forward to for so long. Another time that we read about Andrew is at what is called the feeding of the 5,000.”
“I thank Michelle Thomson for securing the debate. I will focus on Andrew himself. To start with, we might consider what we mean by a saint. In Christian scriptures in the Bible, the word “saint” is used to mean every follower of Jesus Christ, not just a few. Those were not exceptionally good people but people who believed that Jesus had been punished in their place, so their sins had been forgiven and they had been gifted eternal life. However, over time, a tradition built up that some people were somehow extra special and were therefore called saints, although there was still disagreement in the Christian church about exactly what we meant by a saint. Nevertheless, Andrew is categorised as a saint under both definitions, so I thought that I would look at what we know of Andrew in the Christian scriptures.”
“Members will think up conspiracy theories if the Government tries to shut down the debate, if the minister does not even respond to genuine points that have been made and if SNP members try to interrupt Opposition members who are putting things on the record, which is an important part of our role as legislators who are trying to pass good legislation. In speaking against the motion—I will vote against it—I once again urge the Government to consider being wholly honest and transparent. The Government should release all the details so that, if we are to clear up its mess, we will at least do so with the full information. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. 17:16”
“This is what we have got, and it is what we will get for the next couple of days: SNP members telling Opposition politicians, “Shut up, sit down, and don’t speak about it. We have made a mess of it. Just clear it up for us so that we get no attention.” Hundreds of millions of pounds will potentially be withdrawn from local government and will need to be paid for by the Scottish Government because of an error that was made by the Scottish Government. I repeat what I said earlier: if the shoe were on the other foot and if this was a different Parliament with a different party in Government, SNP members would be kicking up a stink. When I intervened on him earlier, Graeme Dey said that I am thinking up conspiracy theories.”
“Therefore, it will cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Christine Grahame: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am listening carefully to the member. I say to him with all due respect that he seems to be talking about the legislation that we just voted on rather than the business motion. I am still waiting to hear his opposition to the business motion. The Presiding Officer: Yes; the business motion regards the timetable and the procedures for consideration of the non-domestic rates bill. Douglas Ross: There was nothing respectful about that point of order; it was just to try to interrupt. Christine Grahame: It was respectful. Douglas Ross: Well, you can make another point of order if you think that it was. The Presiding Officer: Please always speak through the chair. Douglas Ross: She was just trying to interrupt my speech.”
“I think that I heard Douglas Ross say that the error had cost millions of pounds, but does he accept that it has not cost anything, that correcting it will not cost anything, and that his opposition would cost millions of pounds? [Interruption.] Douglas Ross: No, I would not accept that. Oh, gosh, they are even clapping. That is how silly some of those SNP MSPs are. If members are applauding that, they do not understand what it means. Another point that Graeme Dey refused to engage on is how the bill will work retrospectively. We do not yet know whether the emergency legislation will stand up in a court of law. We could meet over the next three days to put through emergency legislation to try to fix the mess that has been made by the SNP, but we still will not know whether that can be legally challenged.”
“Most important, does the minister think that it is right for businesses and Scotland’s councils to pay the price for the SNP’s incompetence? For those reasons, we cannot support the use of emergency powers. Even if the motion is agreed to, we cannot support the timetable for the bill, which is the direct result of SNP incompetence. That reflects the fact that we need significantly more scrutiny and transparency in relation not just to this SNP bill but to its general dealings with the Parliament. 16:43”
“I recognise that what has happened creates financial pressures—pressures that the Scottish Government has brought on itself through its incompetence—and those pressures could add to the pressures that are already felt by local government. Let me ask the Government a few questions. It might want to respond to them in writing or find a means to respond to them today. Given that we are being asked to pass emergency legislation, will the Government confirm that it has taken sound legal advice on the competence of the bill? If so, is it watertight? What is the Scottish Government’s assessment of the likely success of any legal challenge that might be initiated against the new legislation? My understanding from speaking to stakeholders today is that several property owners are giving active consideration to such legal challenges.”
“As Opposition MSPs, we do not have an army of civil servants at our disposal to produce amendments at short notice and, unlike the SNP Government, we do not have dozens of spin doctors to create a smokescreen. We need time to scrutinise the bill. The SNP Government published it only yesterday, but it wants it to be passed in two days. The SNP is using the distraction of the UK budget as a smokescreen to cover for its own incompetence. Worse still, it is trying to fix rushed legislation with rushed legislation. Given the Scottish Government’s track record, we believe that there should be much more scrutiny of the bill, because how do we know that it will not make the situation worse? John Swinney’s Government wants to pass an emergency law to keep £400 million that it took from businesses but was not legally entitled to take.”
“Graeme Dey: I have listened with interest to Craig Hoy’s comments, but I have a question for him. Given the significant sums of money involved, what will his party do? Will it resist the approach to fixing the problem, or will it act responsibly? Which is it? Craig Hoy: I am going to hold the minister and the Government to account, and I am going to ask for more transparency and scrutiny so that the Government does not repeat the mistake that it is presently trying to fix. Having messed up once already, the Government is now seeking permission from the Parliament to rush through a piece of legislation to cover a mistake that is entirely of its own making.”
“When I look through the bill documents, it is like an episode of “Yes Minister”. The civil service jargon says: “the amendments made by the 2020 Act to devolve EPR had not had the intended legal effect”. To use plain English, the SNP Government simply cocked up. Its legislation provided no legal basis for companies to be paying business rates on unoccupied properties over three budgetary years. As the minister said, the money that is involved amounts to £400 million. Businesses across Scotland have, in good faith, been paying non- domestic rates on unoccupied properties that they should not have been paying. That is not a trivial amount of money, and this is not a trivial issue. That £400 million could have been used, in the interim, to support businesses to invest in jobs and growth, but that has not been happening.”
“Would the member accept that he is somewhat overegging this? Everyone makes slight administrative mistakes, and this is not a major issue. Craig Hoy: Mr Mason might have left the party, but he is still an apologist for the Administration. We are talking about £400 million being taken from struggling businesses in order to help to fill the SNP’s coffers. We have to be aware that there could even be legal challenges to the legislation. The Government clearly made a mistake. It disregarded the legislative requirements that are laid down in the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, which was completely overlooked by the Government as it sought to mount yet another cash grab on businesses and property owners. We now know that the Government found out in August that there was a problem with the legislation, but it chose not to tell anyone.”
“I look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate and seeking to work towards a bill that can further the rights of children effectively. 14:46”
“We note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has proposed mitigations to part 2, and we invite the Scottish Government to reflect further on those. The committee is concerned, too, about the precedent that that approach sets in establishing carve-outs from legislation. We ask that, should the bill be passed, the Scottish Government ensures that Parliament is kept updated about the operation of that provision and how it may be used. As I noted in my opening remarks, after careful consideration, a majority of the committee agreed to recommend to Parliament that it should agree to the general principles of the bill. It should be recognised that that support is predicated on amendments being made to the bill to respond to the concerns that I have outlined this afternoon.”
“Turning to part 2, I note that the bill seeks to amend the 2024 act in order to add an exception to the duty on public authorities under section 6 of that legislation to act compatibly with the UNCRC in circumstances where the authority is compelled to act incompatibly in reliance on another act of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government explained that that is intended to remove the potential for public authorities to have to decide whether to act in a way that puts them in breach of the compatibility duty in the 2024 act or another statutory duty. Stakeholders were concerned about the implications of part 2 and perplexed about the rationale for it. It is unclear to the committee why part 2 is essential at this juncture, given that a scoping exercise has not been undertaken to understand whether there is a need for it.”
“Another concern that was presented to the committee was that part 1 of the bill has been drafted as an amendment to existing pre- devolution legislation rather than as stand-alone legislation and that, as a result, the bill is not within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. A majority of the committee was disappointed by the approach that has been taken. It would have been preferable for the bill to have been drafted as stand-alone legislation. Stakeholders have recommended that the bill be amended to bring it within the scope of the 2024 act. The committee acknowledges that an amendment of that significance might not be admissible, but we would nonetheless welcome the cabinet secretary’s reflections on that concern.”
“A majority of the committee agreed with the approach that is taken in the bill not to prescribe an age at which a child is considered to have capacity. However, we recognise that that will present challenges for teachers, and they will need to be supported and resourced to make those decisions. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Does Karen Adam recognise that capacity is defined in several different age brackets by various acts of this Parliament? I have sought to clarify that and bring cohesion on it. Should the bill seek to do so, too? Karen Adam: It is not a committee bill—it is a Scottish Government bill. We had a great deal of discussion on the age at which a child could have capacity, but the majority of us decided that teachers deal with such things all the time and have to make those kinds of decisions.”
“While we recognise the support for that independent right, a majority of the committee understood why the cabinet secretary had sought to chart a middle ground on the issue in seeking only to make provision for the opt-in. However, we still appreciate that there are strong arguments for that independent right, and a majority of the committee agreed to invite the cabinet secretary to consider making provision for that in future legislation. Some of the evidence that was presented to the committee expressed concern about the absence of a prescribed age at which a child is considered to be capable of forming a view on withdrawal. It was suggested that that would place undue pressure on teachers to make decisions on capacity. Others suggested, however, that teachers are making those kinds of decisions on capacity all the time.”
“We also heard concerns that familial conflict might be precipitated as a result of the bill. We recognise that there is the potential for such conflict, and we urge the Scottish Government to monitor the impact of the bill and ensure that schools have the resources and training to enable them to meet those challenges. Witnesses also expressed disappointment about the lack of an independent right for the child to opt out of religious observance. The bill provides a right for the child to opt into religious observance and religious and moral education where a parent has exercised their right to withdraw a pupil, but it provides no right to independently opt out. In that regard, the bill falls short of meeting the concluding observations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.”
“Under the bill, withdrawal from both is treated in the same way. However, witnesses told the committee that the two should not be treated equally. It was suggested that withdrawal should apply only to religious observance. A majority of the committee agreed with that, recommending that “opting out from RME should not be possible for either young people or their parents/guardians. In an ever more fragmented society, RME seems an increasingly important subject and one from which the Committee considers children should not be withdrawing.” We note the Scottish Government’s reasoning for not adopting that approach, but we urge it to reflect again and to lodge amendments in that respect. That approach has been adopted in Wales, and we do not see why it could not be adopted in Scotland, too.”
“I was referring to the specific and particular data that we wanted to see in order to know and understand the issue a bit better. We have asked the Scottish Government to look into providing us with that data. We have asked the Scottish Government to undertake research to better understand how withdrawal is monitored, and to look at what schools put in place for young people who have been withdrawn. As it stands, if withdrawals continue to be at a low level, the impact of the bill might be minimal, but its impact must be monitored, as greater numbers of withdrawals could have a significant impact on schools. I turn to the main concerns about part 1 of the bill. First, the committee heard concerns about the bill’s conflation of religious observance and religious and moral education.”
“The member is linking religious observance and religious education, but questions have previously been raised about that. Did the committee look at that point? It seems to me that all children should be educated, but not all children should be taking part in observance. Karen Adam: I will come to that point in my speech. The difference between religious observance and religious and moral education did come up in committee. Stephen Kerr: The convener said that there is little or no data on withdrawals. Did the committee have any concerns about that? Why would we legislate in an area on which there is no data? Did that come up? Was it a consideration for the committee during its proceedings? Karen Adam: We did not doubt that withdrawal is happening—there is evidence that it is.”
“Given the emphasis on healthcare in the report by the abortion law expert group that came out last Friday, can the First Minister give an assurance that the health of all unborn babies, wanted or not, will be at the centre of the Government’s thinking?”
“Yes, there is certainly room for improvement, but let us not be overly negative, as we sometimes tend to be. I commend the committee on its report, which I think is thorough, but I remain convinced that, although the structure is important, the real key to how well our committees operate is down to the behaviour and attitudes of the committee members. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mason. We have not been able to get Rona Mackay’s camera to function, for whatever reason, so I am afraid that, on this occasion, I will not be able to call her. Instead, we will move directly to closing speeches. I call Paul Sweeney to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. 16:20”
“However, I accept that many people among the public and the media enjoy seeing witnesses being treated aggressively—indeed, ideally, they would probably like to see them bursting into tears. We, as members of committees, need to decide whether we are primarily at the committee playing to the gallery or whether we really want to find solutions to problems. I guess that there is a balance to be struck in that regard, but I do not think that we always get it right. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Mason, on the important issue of timekeeping, to which you referred recently, and exercising my skills as the chair of this meeting, I say that I can give you one more minute. John Mason: I will not even need that; I have only two paragraphs left. Overall, I am a strong believer in our committee system, linked to a unicameral Parliament system.”
“Secondly, there is a problem with conveners not allocating time fairly between committee members, which can mean that loud and pushy MSPs get more time while quieter members get less. Thirdly, some chairs, on the other hand, are too laid back and let the committee just drift along. Managing time is an important part of convening any meeting, and there is a need to keep MSPs and witnesses within reasonable time limits. Fourthly, some conveners have an issue with getting the balance right between robust questioning and bullying witnesses. Witnesses are likely to open up more if they do not feel that they are being beaten into pulp, and, in the long run, future witnesses are more likely to engage with Parliament if they know that they will be treated with a degree of respect.”
“I am afraid that I have been at countless meetings of community councils, council committees, parliamentary committees, church groups, cross-party groups and so on that have been very poorly chaired. Most people could probably learn to chair or convene a meeting, but I have seen very mixed convening in my 14 years in the Scottish Parliament, and I would recommend training for conveners when they start. That said, I take Jackson Carlaw’s point that we do not want all conveners to be the same. Some of the problems that I have seen include conveners who dominate meetings and can take up to half the session with their own questions and comments. Of course, it is right that the convener should lead from the front, but there is a balance to be struck in allowing other members in.”
“Therefore, I think that those visits can be seen as something that is very useful to the evidence-gathering process in this Parliament and can ensure that we work better. John Mason: I am not questioning the value of trips altogether, but when the Finance and Public Administration Committee was in—I think— Estonia, an issue came up in the chamber that someone from the committee had to speak to. Fortunately, I had not gone on that trip and I was able to handle that, although I am not the convener or the deputy convener, but that is an example of one of the challenges. I want to spend a bit of time on the role of conveners. I am not personally convinced that electing or paying conveners would make much of a difference. What I think is that chairing a committee—or any meeting, for that matter—is a skill.”
“However, I very much favour committees having away days and going on fact-finding visits within Scotland. Those can have multiple benefits, as they can create a more collegiate feel in the committee and I know that many residents in island and rural locations especially have appreciated a committee making the effort to visit them instead of their having always to come to Edinburgh. Liz Smith: I take Mr Mason’s point about overseas visits, and I think that we have to be very careful that we are accountable for the use of taxpayers’ money in that respect. Nonetheless, to use the example of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, to which he has referred quite a lot, it is helpful for that committee to see how other jurisdictions handle various aspects of financial management.”
“Previously—not, as Keith Brown pointed out, in this session—achieving gender balance on committees was made more difficult because of the idea, originated by Nicola Sturgeon, of having equal numbers of male and female ministers in the Government, which put pressure on the back benches. Clearly, as I think that Mr Whitfield agreed, we need to focus on getting Parliament sorted as a whole, and that will benefit the committees. I do not think that the issue of committee trips has been mentioned. I question whether committees should be away on overseas trips while Parliament is sitting, and I certainly do not think that the whole membership of a committee should be. Three or four members of a committee should be enough to make the trip worth while, and it should be possible to make those trips happen during recess.”
“I have experience of being on three committees, meaning that I was in a meeting every sitting day of the week, which was hard to prepare for and was a bit of a challenge. However, I think that membership of two committees should be manageable and could be advantageous. For example, the Finance and Public Administration Committee often feels that other committees leave everything financial to it, but having MSPs who are on the Finance and Public Administration Committee and on another committee can bring a financial angle to that other committee’s decision making. We have spent a bit of time on the gender mix already, and I think that the committee correctly makes the point that it is difficult to get gender- balanced committees if Parliament as a whole is not gender balanced.”
“Therefore, I agree that it is best if MSPs are not too party political at committee, but we cannot forget that we are elected for particular parties—although I am not currently in a party—with all that that entails. On meeting times, the committee rightly notes that Thursday mornings are particularly difficult, as there is a requirement to finish by 11.40—I was going to intervene during Sue Webber’s speech to make that point, but then she mentioned it anyway. In contrast, the two committee meetings that I have been in this week—on Tuesday and Wednesday—both ran until at least 1.30, and I suggest that Thursday meetings could run until at least 12 o’clock. I note the comments about the disadvantages of members being on more than one committee, but I think that there are also advantages to that.”
“That was better than if a bill committee had come to it cold, but I accept that there are different issues. I turn to some of the specifics covered by the report. On the size of committees, I very much agree that smaller committees generally work better. Currently, I am on one committee with seven members and another with 10, and I think that the one with seven members is better, although that means that there are only four parties in it compared with five. On the culture of committees, the point is made that MSPs and their attitude are more important than the structure. However, structure has its importance, as well. The convener is important in setting the tone. However, I have seen that, if even one member who is very tribal in their attitude joins a committee, that can change the whole culture of the committee.”
“The stuff that Evelyn Tweed and other members have talked about—subject inquiries and all the other things that committees are expected to do—hardly gets done. If you are on some of the committees in this Parliament, you spend a lot of time on stage 2s. Just dismissing the idea that we should have bill committees would be a mistake, and I ask him to consider that point of view. John Mason: Actually, I have considered it, Stephen Kerr will be surprised to hear. My main argument is that on a matter such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission—I cannot remember whether Liz Smith was on the Finance Committee at that time—we might spend a huge amount of time, as we did in that case. It was quite a technical issue, and then we dealt with the Scottish Fiscal Commission Bill.”
“Over my 14 years at Holyrood, I have served on—if I remember correctly—finance committees, economy committees, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, a transport committee— Stephen Kerr: Will John Mason give way? John Mason: Let me finish this wonderful list. I have also served on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Stephen Kerr: As a former member of the Westminster Parliament, John Mason would acknowledge that there are limitations when everything goes through one committee; it is an issue of capacity.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was not sure whether you were first bringing in Rona Mackay again. Many thanks for the opportunity to speak and many thanks to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its excellent report. I very much agree with the first point in its overall conclusion, which is that “it is essential that the ... Parliament has a strong and effective committee system.” I hope that we are all committed to that. I am also in agreement with the original decision to have one set of committees at Holyrood instead of the Westminster system of separate select and bill committees. I have had experience of that system as well, and I definitely think that that is one aspect in which ours is the better system.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you confirm the result of the previous vote? The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mason. You have brought something to my attention—you are quite right. For clarity, the result of the division on amendment 346 is: For 91, Against 27, Abstentions 0. Amendment 346 agreed to. The Presiding Officer: I think that Maggie Chapman wants to make a point of order.”
“Will the member give way? Bob Doris: Of course. John Mason: Does the member not think that it is the duty of the 129 MSPs to be here or watching online? We cannot just make excuses because some MSPs fancy an afternoon off on a Thursday. Bob Doris: I ask Mr Mason not to put words in my mouth. I am giving no one an excuse for not being here on a Thursday afternoon. I am here every Thursday afternoon and, quite frankly, I am upset that some of my colleagues do not take that opportunity and seem to leave Parliament early. It is not good enough. The point that I would make is that Parliament took a view at stage 1 that I disagreed with. The issue is whether we should use that as a mechanism by which to delay the legislation or be against it. I am still listening to the comments of colleagues, including that of”
“In the interests of transparency, I propose rerunning the vote on amendment 31. There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. On amendment 29, I thought that I heard you say that the result was 42 for and 86 against, which I do not think is correct. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will double check. Thank you, Mr Mason. The result of the vote on amendment 29 is: For 42, Against 68, Abstentions 0. The amendment is still not agreed to. Amendment 31 moved—[Edward Mountain]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. I have been informed that Parliament TV is not functioning at the moment, so I will suspend the meeting until we find out what is wrong with it. 19:53 Meeting suspended. 20:01 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Okay, colleagues—apologies for that.”
“We all support the right to protest, assemble, march, and so on, yet the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 makes it an offence to stir up hatred. Does the First Minister think that we have, or can achieve, the right balance? Some groups, such as Catholic and Irish people, feel threatened by the repeated Orange marches in Glasgow, and Jewish people feel threatened by the repeated pro-Palestinian protests.”
“As we go into an important budget period, whether we are discussing college funding or other matters, we need to have seriousness across the chamber, as well as creative ideas and collaboration. My ministerial colleagues and I have a doors-open policy for hearing ideas, and I look forward to members thinking creatively and responsibly in the period ahead. Decision Time 17:05”
“Have Mr Kerr and the Conservatives, or even Pam Duncan-Glancy and Labour, suggested to the minister where the extra money that they want to give to colleges should come from? Does the minister think that they want to cut funding from the national health service? Do they want to cut funding from universities? Do they want to raise tax? The Presiding Officer: Mr Macpherson should answer in relation to the substantive question. Ben Macpherson: I will make an important broader point. In the Parliament, we all have a shared interest in representing our constituents in the best way possible, and we all have a shared responsibility to debate the choices before us seriously and in the wider context in which we have to operate.”
“It is time to dual and electrify the Highland main line. 12:58”
“There are no official estimates for how much it would cost to dual and electrify the Highland main line, but I believe that there is a strong economic case to get the ball rolling and that the line would rapidly pay for itself. Let us put our money where our mouth is and properly fund rail. Let us undertake scoping work and collect proper data on rail freight usage. Let us get spades in the ground. Colleagues, if we can find billions of pounds to dual the A9, we can surely invest in the Highland main line. The choice is clear: we can keep pouring money into roads and lock ourselves into higher emissions, or we can make a bold statement on rail to deliver cleaner air, safer roads and stronger communities. The Highlands deserve better. The people whom I travel alongside every week deserve better.”
“Look at high speed 1 in south-east England. Trains on that dualled and electrified railway can hoover up the 70 miles between London and the Channel in 45 minutes. Although the Highland main line route is a tougher landscape to navigate than that of HS1, trains could be sped up significantly, and a lot of capacity could be added if we dualled and electrified the line. The Scottish Government has said that a journey time of two hours and 45 minutes is possible on the route and has previously promised the people of the Highlands faster rail, such as when it pledged in 2008 to shave 30 minutes off journey times on the main line. In the 17 years since, just four minutes have been saved. It is beyond time that the Government made good on that promise.”
“Rail must be the spine of that strategy, enabling visitors not only to arrive sustainably but to be based in one town and then travel to explore the park by public transport, including rail. This is about more than dualling a line. It is about a vision for the Highlands in which rail is the backbone that connects our communities, supports our economy and delivers our climate ambitions. We cannot settle for a 19th century railway in the 21st century. As I stated in the motion for debate, Network Rail’s work on passing loops must be acknowledged, but that work is picking at the low-hanging fruit. What rail users really need is much bigger change—namely, we need the Highland main line to be dualled and we need it, along with Scotland’s other key rail routes, to be electrified. That would make a major difference.”
“Does Ariane Burgess agree that the situation could get even worse if the road is improved so that it is faster for freight and cars, while things stay the same for the railway? Ariane Burgess: That is why I have brought the debate to the chamber. We really need to look at rail. There has been a lot of investment in roads over time, but not enough in the Highland main line. Another big business sector in the Highlands that would benefit from an improved main line is tourism. The sector contributes almost £11 billion to Scotland’s economy, and we need to make it easier for tourists to get to the magical landscapes of the north and west. The Highland main line runs through the Cairngorms national park, and the Cairngorms National Park Authority has the ambition that 25 per cent of its visitors should be arriving by public transport.”
“The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 336 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“We can make a change now. I accept that amendment 336 is simply a way of indicating the need for more urgent movement on the issue by the Government. I am afraid that subcontracting the issue to the Law Commission will not be enough alone, because we need to move at a greater pace than the pace at which the Law Commission can deliver. For several years, I have been working with Mr Simpson and others on the working group on tenement maintenance, and we are disappointed and frustrated that the Government is not moving more quickly. Residents in Pollokshields, Calton and Dennistoun, as well as those elsewhere in Glasgow, need greater security and greater reassurance from the Government that it will deal with the issue sooner rather than later. I ask members to back amendment 336, which I press.”