Daniel Johnson
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations.”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever.”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated.”
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured.”
The complete record
Every one of 684 lines we hold for Daniel Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 14.
“What does Mark Ruskell think changed between his discussions in 2022 and the subsequent decision? What he has encountered from ExxonMobil is a genuinely curious set of affairs. Mark Ruskell: What was needed was to bring the stakeholders and operators together to look at the future. The report that I issued in 2022 laid out four clear options for investment in the plant, which could have given it a life. It did not have to close. There were options. Both Governments needed to come together and work to deliver a plan. We knew that the threat of closure was coming. For years, the Greens called on both Governments to prepare for that future, but no work was undertaken.”
“That is how I think that the work should be approached in the next session of Parliament, if the bill does not proceed today. However, we have an opportunity to take this work forward and we all agree that it should be taken forward, so I urge members to vote for the bill at stage 1 this evening. 15:21”
“Today, it looks as though the Government may prevail in not allowing the bill to proceed, and that will be a great shame. The question for Parliament is how we want to proceed, because this work must proceed. I think that it would be an error for members to vote against the bill this afternoon. There may be a great deal of detail to be worked out, but at least it would be progress and something to be taken up by the next Parliament. I do not believe that the Scottish Government is necessarily the best body to take the work forward. Parliament needs to think about how we could take it forward collectively on a cross-party basis. Ultimately, this is about scrutiny and accountability, and that is the business of Parliament.”
“It is not just about secrecy; it is about good decision making. The ferries fiasco shines a great deal of light on that. The fact that it transpired that email chains were being used as evidence of decision making, with second-hand accounts of conversations being held with ministers, is not good enough, and we have to shine a light on poor decision making like that. I commend the approach that has been taken in the bill—first, to follow the money, as it were, because, where public money is being spent, whether by the public or private sectors, we have to have accountability, and there has to be a presumption of disclosure. We must have frameworks that seek to proactively disclose information and remove exemptions, caveats and vetoes. That has to be the right way to proceed.”
“To be frank, the FOI regime is in a state that means that people are losing trust because of the secrecy and the reluctance to divulge information. Richard Leonard was absolutely right that it is about principle—in my view, two very important principles. The first leads directly to democracy itself. If we seek to have democracy, we must have openness and transparency, because after all, this is the public’s money: the money that they entrust to us to spend wisely. The only way in which the public can have trust and confidence is if they have clear transparency and openness on how that money is being spent. Just as important is the question of how Government makes decisions on our behalf: how it understands those principles, the reasons and the information, and the way in which those decisions are being made.”
“At the heart of the matter is the question of what kind of Parliament, politics and Government we want, what we claim that we have and what we really have. I think that the two most important contributions this afternoon came from Jamie Greene and Richard Leonard. Jamie Greene highlighted the reality for those who seek to gain information through freedom of information legislation. To be frank, most people find it a battle, given the constant stream of reasons why information cannot be revealed, and the swathes of paper; we are not allowed props in the chamber, but I caught a glimpse of what Jamie Greene was holding up. Huge amounts of toner are wasted on redactions for those who seek to print out documents. That is not good enough.”
“Patrick Harvie, in summing up, poured a bit of scorn on those who like to claim that the Scottish Government wants to be secretive or to sit on information. I gently say to him that that is almost certainly what a former minister would say, if I can be somewhat impish. However, Patrick Harvie made a number of good remarks, and his point that, overall, there is a consensus about the need for reform and to update the legislation on freedom of information is absolutely correct. In that context, Katy Clark is to be congratulated on taking forward a bill that is not only important but very technical and not trivial in any respect. She deserves a great deal of credit for that, and I also thank the committee for its work.”
“This is not a budget with solutions. It only adds up if there are cuts in education, justice, rural economy and local government. If members do not believe me, they should simply look at figure 6 in the Fiscal Commission’s summary paper on the budget. It shows a cut of more than £400 million to local government funding, too. That is the reality of this budget, and that is what the Government is asking us to vote for this afternoon.”
“I always seek to strike a consensual tone. If there is one point from this afternoon’s debate that we can all agree on, it is Jamie Hepburn’s observation that no one wants to see Michael Marra dance. I strongly suspect that Shona Robison is not the first person to reject such an offer from Mr Marra. I also think that we need to listen to the calmer voices in the chamber. Liz Smith, in particular, made a very important contribution. We do have some very important institutions in this country. The Scottish Fiscal Commission is a relatively new body, but, alongside Audit Scotland and the Fraser of Allander Institute, it provides real insights into Scottish public finances. It is clear from the insights that those institutions have provided that this budget does not deal with the long-term problems that all those bodies consistently identify.”
“It is a perfect size for a football pitch and yet, despite pursuing the issue since 2018, the answer that the groups have been getting is, “Not quite yet. Let’s have another look.” If we are serious about community empowerment and community wealth building, we cannot put this sort of problem in front of communities. We have to get behind them. The reality is that, despite all the meetings, we are not making progress. I was pleased that, when I pointed out to council officials that I had secured this debate, we got another meeting. I do not think that it should take a member of the Scottish Parliament lodging a motion to bring the issue to the Parliament to secure a meeting that was promised would be held in January just before Christmas.”
“It has 75 teams that play in boys’, girls’, women’s and men’s football, with more than 1,000 participants taking part weekly and more than 200 volunteers. The community sports club does so much more, by running free counselling, after-school clubs and so on. Those organisations are at the heart of the community of south Edinburgh and they support groups across the area. Like many community sports clubs, they need to grow, expand and develop their facilities. They need 4G pitches to continue to compete at the right level, and they have land on their doorstep—it is tantalising. If members go down to Inch park and look through the railings, they will see what the council calls the nursery, which is just wide open land. There is a bit of concrete and some skips and other things there. Essentially, the council uses the area to store stuff.”
“[Inaudible.] My competence with the technology in the chamber is matched by my competence at football. In these sorts of debates, many of us will say that we came into politics and the Parliament to make a difference, but we all know that it is the organisations in our communities that really can make that difference. I am in awe of what Edinburgh South Community Football Club and Inch Park Community Sports Club do. They are community wealth building in action. We have just passed legislation on that, and Inch Park Community Sports Club was formed from an asset transfer. Edinburgh South Community Football Club is one of the biggest footballing organisations not just in Edinburgh but across the country.”
“I, too, thank the Economy and Fair Work Committee, our clerks and everyone who gave evidence. It is something of a relief not to speak in the debate as the convener of the committee, because now I get to say what I really think. I will, nonetheless, be rounded and balanced. I would like to reflect on the observation that—”
“When it comes to community wealth building plans, I can entirely see a scenario in which some bodies say, “Oh no, yet another bit of paper that we’ve got to produce—something else that Johnny in office 52 gets to do.” The question is whether we are confident that all those who are tasked with delivering have the resources that are required to implement the bill and ensure that something is delivered. That needs to be the next stage. The resources must be there to ensure that the objectives that everybody in the chamber wants to see can be delivered. We will support the bill at stage 3, but, if we want community wealth building to be delivered, as I think we all do, passing the bill is only the first step. Much more will need to be done to achieve delivery. 15:58”
“Given that we are going to pass the bill at stage 3—I assume that that is the case—the key question is what happens next. It is all very well passing a bill and saying that local authorities and other public bodies have to produce community wealth building action plans, but that in itself will not deliver much. What we have to do is ensure that there is delivery of the objectives of community wealth building, which will come back to the question of resources. When the committee took evidence, some witnesses said that they have issues with, for example, what is in the financial memorandum and the lack of estimates for the implementation costs of the action plans. There will be a resourcing issue for public bodies and local authorities.”
“I very much agree with Murdo Fraser’s point. Does he agree that we must use initiatives such as this to almost tip the balance? All too often, communities feel that they need permission to do things, yet, if it is public land, they should be empowered and enabled to do it. The default should be a yes and not a no. Does he agree that that is what we need to achieve with the bill and future legislation? Murdo Fraser: That is a very reasonable point. The land that I was talking about was private land and not publicly owned land, but the same principle applies. We have a lot of publicly owned assets in Scotland that are not being used to their fullest potential, and we should seek to promote anything that we can do to bring them back into more productive use where the community has an interest.”
“The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. For Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) 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) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) 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) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) 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) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) 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) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)”
“We should own and control more of our economy locally and democratically. That is good for the retention and creation of jobs and good for local and inclusive economic development, and it cultivates long-term thinking. 15:00 Let me finish with another extract from the report to which the minister referred. The foreword was written by Neil McInroy, who chaired the Government review. He said: “We have a choice. We either presume that we can make this change through continuing as we are with the same blend and proportion of business and enterprise ownership forms, or we start to build a genuinely new economy by boldly advancing community wealth through increasing the number and proportion” of inclusive and democratic business models in Scotland. Why the Scottish Government is turning its back on its own target beats me. I press amendment 3.”
“The Presiding Officer: I call Richard Leonard to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 3. Richard Leonard: The minister mentioned the report “Developing Scotland’s Economy: Increasing The Role of Inclusive And Democratic Business Models”, and I would like to quote a couple of extracts from it. First of all, in its opening pages, it says: “Around the world” democratic businesses “are not considered a ‘sideline’ to the mainstream economy, but a vital, growing and essential part of economic success.” What most of my amendments are attempting to do is to seek to promote and realise the potential of employee ownership in the economy, so that we are much less reliant on foreign direct investment and we are less likely to become more of a branch plant economy, which is the state of affairs that this Government has presided over.”
“I thank Murdo Fraser and Daniel Johnson for their productive dialogue with me on matters relating to the monitoring and evaluation of community wealth building action plans, local procurement targets and ensuring that relevant policy areas contribute fully to the advancement of community wealth building in Scotland. We already have a good story to tell in Scotland in relation to public procurement, with some 47 per cent of procurement spend going to small and medium-sized enterprises—more than double the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole. However, the amendments will ensure that we continue to focus on harnessing the power of procurement to support our local economies and communities. I urge all members to support amendments 19, 20 and 28 to 32, because they will improve the bill.”
“Under section 4, the Scottish ministers must report on “the steps they have taken in the reporting period in respect of each measure included in the community wealth building statement” and on the impact of those measures. As such, the bill already requires ministers to report on what they have done to promote or support the development of co-operatives and employee- owned businesses. Taking those points into consideration, which are also relevant to the Government’s position not to support Richard Leonard’s amendments in this group, I think that amendment 34 is unnecessary and would, in part, duplicate provisions elsewhere in the bill. The Government supports all the other amendments in the group.”
“Furthermore, I do not think that the sort of target that is set out in amendment 7, which would affect local community wealth building partnerships, should be included in primary legislation without further consultation with local authorities and their partners. On Sarah Boyack’s amendment 34, section 1(3)(f) already obliges the Scottish ministers to include in the community wealth building statement measures “promoting or supporting the development of”, among other things, “employee-owned businesses” and “co-operatives”. Community wealth building action plans that are prepared by partnerships may also include such measures, as provided for in section 5(5)(g).”
“Amendments 3 and 7 seek to introduce duties on the Scottish ministers and local community wealth building partnerships, respectively, to set targets for increasing the number of worker co-operatives and employee-owned businesses in Scotland. Amendments 4 and 10 are consequential to those amendments. The work of the economic democracy group, which was a recommendation made in the independent report “Developing Scotland’s Economy: Increasing The Role of Inclusive And Democratic Business Models”, needs to be allowed to continue in order to address the issue of national targets in this context. I understand that the next meeting of the group is scheduled for 3 March.”
“Likewise, Murdo Fraser’s and Daniel Johnson’s amendments seek to set sensible targets, so I am happy to support them. The need for clear targets and measurements of progress was reported during evidence gathering, so the Scottish Greens will support amendments that will have that effect, including Sarah Boyack’s amendment 34. Ivan McKee: I met Richard Leonard on 29 January to discuss the bill and his ideas for stage 3 amendments. I thank him for his interest in the bill and his firm support for community wealth building as a policy approach. However, the Government does not support any of Richard Leonard’s amendments in this group.”
“The amendment covers community-owned and democratic businesses to ensure that the models of ownership and control keep wealth rooted locally, which is critical, given that so much of Scotland’s wealth leaks out of the country due to overseas ownership. Co-operatives are a core part of the community wealth building approach. Amendment 34 would ensure that their promotion was not just incidental but actively monitored, reported on and taken seriously as part of delivering the bill’s aims. I commend amendment 34 to the Parliament. Lorna Slater: I am happy to support Richard Leonard’s amendment 3, which would set a target for co-operatives and employee-owned businesses, because that key indicator has been asked for by the sector.”
“Amendment 31 would ensure that the five-yearly reports that community wealth building partnerships will produce state the progress that they have made against the measures that they set out in their original plans. Paul Sweeney: Amendment 34 is in the name of Sarah Boyack, but she is away on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association business, so I am delighted to speak on her behalf. Amendment 34 would require ministers to report regularly on the steps that they were taking to promote co-operatives and support co-operative development. It asks for clarity on the practical resources, including financial support, that have been made available and on how effective those measures have been.”
“Amendment 20, in my name, sets out a list of measures that community wealth building partnerships “may” use, such as business output, employment, the number of employee-owned businesses or co-operatives, use of the community right to buy and so on. I think that that is a good approach, because it provides a list of things that “may” be monitored, thereby creating a common set of measures that allows us to have some regard to how community wealth building is progressing and how community wealth building partnerships seek to work. Amendment 29, in my name, would simply remove the amendments in my name that were agreed to at stage 2, making way for the amendments I am speaking to today.”
“In many ways, I pick up where Murdo Fraser left off. One of the committee’s key concerns or observations during stages 1 and 2 was that, without any system of measures or monitoring, there is a risk that the legislation could produce reports that are not comparable and that do not necessarily lead to action. The minister observed that we must be careful about targets because, first and foremost, community wealth building must be about community-led action. I lodged an amendment at stage 2 seeking to come up with a system of measures. I thank the Government for dialogue since then and for the handout amendments that I will speak to today, which I think provide a way forward.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Yes. Daniel Johnson: The Government must acknowledge that there is a repeated issue with a lack of transparency and a tax that does not reflect economic contribution. The Government must pause and undertake a radical review, so that we do not hammer businesses that are the very lifeblood of many communities in Scotland. I move amendment S6M-20653.2, to leave out from “, and further” to end and insert: “; acknowledges long-standing criticism of a lack of transparency within the non-domestic rates system; recognises that hospitality businesses pay proportionately more in rates as compared to their share of the economy, and calls on the Scottish Government to overhaul the system.” 15:05”
“I would be grateful if the minister could explain how and where the Government is introducing measures that reflect those Barnett consequentials. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Briefly, minister. The member is in his last 30 seconds. Ivan McKee: Daniel Johnson said that the UK Labour Government is putting in a support package of £4.3 billion. The Scottish Government is putting in a support package of £864 million. If that was scaled up to the size of the UK economy, it would be closer to £10 billion. Daniel Johnson: The reality is that, for many hospitality businesses, in particular, because of the caps and, critically, the transitional reliefs, that package will make a measurable difference. There will be significant differences for comparable businesses north and south of the border. Do I need to wind up, Presiding Officer?”
“I accept that the minister has, in a sense, inherited the system, but the Scottish Government is in a position to change the system were it to acknowledge the issues that exist. It seems to acknowledge those in part, but the problem is that it is far too slow to do so. Even within the existing system, the Government is simply not being as generous as other parts of the United Kingdom. The UK Labour Government is putting in place a £4.3 billion support package, capping increases at 15 per cent for most small businesses with a value of under £100,000. Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: The Government has previously made a commitment that it will examine the consequentials that are available.”
“Rates are not supposed to be assessed on that basis; they are meant to be linked to rent—what a property could be rented out for. Assessors are unilaterally changing the methodology and explaining that after the rates bill has arrived. Most critically, on the point of equity, the fundamental issue with the rates system is that it does not correlate with the economic contribution of different sectors, with some sectors paying significantly more than the contribution that they make to the overall economy. For example, retail—my old sector—makes an economic contribution of 11 per cent but pays a 24 per cent share of the rates bill. The position for hospitality is even worse—its gross value added is 3 per cent, but it contributes 9 per cent to the rates bill. That is the fundamental issue. I accept the technicalities and the complexity.”
“At least two of those are probably being broken, certainly when it comes to hospitality and the rates system. However, the issue is not just with hospitality. If members will indulge me a little, the problem is that, in many sectors, the revaluations just do not make sense. For example, Edinburgh airport’s rateable value has increased by 300 per cent, whereas Glasgow airport’s has increased by just 50 per cent and Prestwick airport’s has increased by 39 per cent. I imagine that the owners of Prestwick airport might be taking that up with the assessors if the rates bill is increasing by that amount. The important bit here is the explanation of assessors: not only are assessors making different assessments; they are basing them on revenue.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, although it is some years since I have been responsible for paying non- domestic rates. It is a great shame that this Parliament does not sit on Mondays, because Monday was groundhog day. Here we are again, having the same debate, yet, on this important issue, we are barely getting even a difference in nuance from the minister. I understand that it is complex, and the minister is right to reflect on the fact that the revenue that is raised pays for local services, but he must also acknowledge and address the deep flaws in the rates system. When Kate Forbes was finance secretary, she was quite right to repeatedly restate Adam Smith’s principles of taxation—equity, certainty, convenience and economy.”
“Does the member agree that the issue is not just about the hospitality sector? There is a fundamental problem of a lack of transparency in how rates and rateable values are arrived at for all businesses that are charged them, and there needs to be a fundamental review. Murdo Fraser: I understand Mr Johnson’s point. Our focus today is very much on hospitality, but I am aware of other sectors, such as the self- catering sector and small-scale hydro schemes, that are also affected by the revaluation. I know that the Scottish Government will say that the assessors and the work that they do are independent, but the framework is set by the Scottish Government and is in legislation. The Scottish Government has indicated a review of the methodology—”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the “Cities Outlook 2026” report and the performance of Scottish cities. (S6O- 05458)”
“Its view was that Scotland had an opportunity to secure additional private sector investment over and above what might be secured through the bond issuance programme alone. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 6 was not lodged. Trade Mission to United Arab Emirates (Exporters) 7.”
“There is a question not only about the cost of borrowing, but about transaction costs. Will the Deputy First Minister set out what the costs will be in bankers’ fees, accountants’ fees and fees to the credit rating agency for raising the bonds? Kate Forbes: I will make two points. I address these remarks to Murdo Fraser, too. We would be more than happy to hold a briefing session, as that might help members to understand the process a bit more. Those costs will be determined when we enter into such transactions with the third-party broker. Right now, the attractiveness of the Scottish economy to investors is growing. I do not think that any member could disagree with the merit of the individuals who sat on the investor panel.”
“That is why it is a $250 billion industry globally, of which we have a £350 million share. Let us get serious. Let us have a plan. Let us have the necessary leadership, and let us make sure that we deliver the investment so that we can have the next Grand Theft Auto in Scotland. Let us also be clear that gaming is pervasive. We need to understand that the games sector is not just a discrete part of the economy. Increasingly, as people spend time using games and earning money from doing so—they can earn money in real life—the interface between games and real life will start to look far less defined and far more blurry than we realise. We need to take the games industry seriously. It is a Scottish success story, and we should back it with a plan. 19:15”
“The action plan calls for leadership and co- ordination across policy areas; a focus on skills and a skills pipeline; and funding and investment. However, those things should not need to be asked for. This is a sector that we have been saying is a jewel of Scotland’s business and industry, yet it is calling out for things that are standard for businesses that we support and seek to nurture. Our approach to games and the games industry is stuck in the 1980s, and we need to get it up to speed. We should acknowledge that the games industry is a different kind of industry. It is not just about people writing lines of code—in fact, I think that probably very few people working in the games industry write lines of code. It is about writers, designers, artists and people who are involved with the marketing, finance and legal issues.”
“For many people of my generation, they are part of our lives and they continue to be so right the way through adulthood. If we look at how people use games, we see that, increasingly, people—young or old—do not think of themselves as gamers, but as people who use games. Even my mother likes to play Scrabble on her phone, and my wife is pretty addicted to Wordle. They are gamers, whether they realise it or not. Games are pervasive—as pervasive as the devices that we have in our pockets. However, when we look at the strategy that is set out in the “Level Up Scotland” document, we must recognise that we still have a disjointed approach to how we think about computer games and the computer games industry.”
“Presiding Officer, thank you for tolerating my slipping out early from the debate to attend a reception that I am sponsoring this evening. I am keen to speak in this debate. I count myself part of a lucky generation, because I grew up with computer games. I got my first computer, a ZX Spectrum, for Christmas in 1984. I then had a Nintendo Entertainment System, and SimCity just about ruined my highers. Indeed, I am not ashamed to say that I built my own personal computer about two years ago, and I get somewhat distracted by a combination of Rust, Cities: Skylines and Assetto Corsa. The point that I am trying to make is that we sometimes talk about computer games as though they are things for kids—a curiosity and a niche interest—but they are not.”
“Overall, however, we should seek to minimise the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and to ensure that it is used only as a last resort and where there is an immediate risk of harm. I acknowledge that there are concerns about the proposals that are set out in the bill, but I make it clear that the bill simply puts on a statutory footing what should already be happening. Its obligations will rest with local authorities and schools, not individual teachers. It is vital that those practitioners who may need training get the best possible training. My bill will certainly not require all teachers to be trained. That is what my bill will do. It should improve matters for practitioners, parents and, above all, children.”
“Schools act in loco parentis, and if physical interventions or seclusion take place, it is vital that parents and carers are informed promptly. Thirdly, it would require recording and reporting on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. Despite their being part of Scottish Government guidance for almost a decade, we still do not have consistency of recording or a clear national picture of the frequency of, or variation in, those practices. Fourthly, it would create a duty on the Scottish Government to maintain a list of approved training providers, to ensure safe practice. The bill does not seek to stop the use of physical interventions, but we must ensure that, when they do occur, the best possible practice is used and support is provided to those practitioners who need to use them.”
“That is why I bring this bill before the Parliament today. Let me set out the bill’s four key provisions. First, it would create a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue statutory guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, refreshing the existing non-statutory guidance. That is not to create something new; it is simply to put the guidance on a statutory footing and to ensure that long- standing inconsistencies are eradicated by ensuring that we have clear and consistent practice across Scotland. Secondly, it would create a duty on schools to inform parents and carers promptly if their child has been restrained or secluded. We have to end the anguish and frustration that is experienced by so many parents who face that situation.”
“Those findings have been reinforced by several subsequent reports from many trusted organisations, such as Enable, Positive and Active Behaviour Support Scotland, Children in Scotland, the National Autistic Society Scotland and Scottish Autism. They were also raised in the Morgan review on additional support needs, which was commissioned by the Government. Through the last parliamentary session, I listened to many parents’ anguish and pain as they told stories about how they had struggled to find out why their children had returned home with bruises—children who were overwhelmingly of primary school age; children with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning difficulties; often, children who had diminished communication. I felt compelled to act and to do what I could to make Calum’s law a reality.”
“He had been pinned down by four adults, face down in a prone restraint, simply because he did not want to get off a bike. In 2015, she lodged a petition, which urged the Parliament to create Calum’s law to deal with the issue. When, in 2022, Beth asked me whether I would take that proposal forward, I was pleased to do so, because I knew that Beth’s and Calum’s experiences were not isolated ones. In 2018, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland published a report, “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools”, which identified 2,674 incidents of restraint and seclusion related to 386 children. It also found that only 18 of the 32 local authorities were recording that information and that even fewer were doing so comprehensively at the level of the child.”
“It is a huge privilege to move the motion in my name, which seeks the Parliament’s support for the purposes and general principles of my bill. I begin by thanking the Education, Children and Young People Committee for its diligent and detailed report. The insights that it has provided the Parliament with will strengthen the legislation. Likewise, I thank the Government for the on-going dialogue, particularly with Jenny Gilruth. That dialogue has been constructive and extremely useful. The non-Government bills unit is a jewel of this Parliament and must be acknowledged, as must my office team—in particular, Philip Miller. However, the greatest acknowledgement must go to Beth Morrison. Her tireless campaigning on the issue began when her son Calum returned home from school in 2010, covered in bruises.”
“I am grateful, but the cabinet secretary is mistaken. There are questions about what happened, but the question that Ms Baillie put to him is: what is the current status of the hospital? Are those facilities validated and declared safe— yes or no? Neil Gray: That is a matter for the inquiry. [Interruption.] I will come to this. It is a matter for Lord Brodie to determine the evidence that he seeks, relevant to the terms of reference. He has received evidence from independent experts—”
“We also heard about uncertainties to do with insolvency, debt enforcement and court procedures, as noted by the minister, and using digital assets as loan security. We recommend that the Scottish Government reviews those areas with a view to future reform. The Economy and Fair Work Committee supports the general principles of the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill and looks forward to stages 2 and 3, should Parliament approve the bill at decision time today. 16:00”