Colin Smyth
Independent · Scotland
“When the minister considers the review, will he also commit to considering full cost recovery from licence applicants so that the public no longer subsidise private interests when licences are granted for the killing of protected species?”
“Amendment 64 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That ends stage 3 consideration of amendments. As members will be aware, under standing orders, the Presiding Officer is required to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franch…”
“I was taken in through the big arch door, and as soon as that door closed, my nightmare began—six weeks of hell I’ve carried with me all of my life.” Those wee girls’ hell was concealed, covered up and kept from parents. The children were made to write “nice” letters home, copied word for word from a blackboard.”
“Presiding Officer, “Trust is sacred. Our trust was broken as little girls—and now, trust in the system that’s supposed to help us and do right by us has been shattered.” Those are the words of the Fornethy survivors. Some of those brave women are with us in the public gallery today. Hundreds more have shared their story.”
“Most of those girls stayed for four to eight weeks, sometimes more than once. Some were as young as five years old. They were sent away to somewhere new and exciting—a place to rest and recuperate. One survivor said: “I remember getting on a bus with a suitcase. I was going on holiday for the first time.”
“My focus today will therefore be on the failures of Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to show that same respect to those women. They have been campaigning for five and a half years against those failures, and they are still waiting for a full and meaningful apology.”
The complete record
Every one of 148 lines we hold for Colin Smyth, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that nearly 40 per cent of adults in Dumfries and Galloway are not registered with a national health service dentist. (S6O-04811)”
“When the minister considers the review, will he also commit to considering full cost recovery from licence applicants so that the public no longer subsidise private interests when licences are granted for the killing of protected species? Jim Fairlie: As I have outlined to members, we are reviewing the piece of work that has been done and we will publish the review when the time comes.”
“Amendment 64 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That ends stage 3 consideration of amendments. As members will be aware, under standing orders, the Presiding Officer is required to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In her view, no provision of the Scottish Languages Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I suspend the meeting for a comfort break. 17:15 Meeting suspended. 17:21 On resuming— Scottish Languages Bill”
“On a point of order. I could not connect to the system, but I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Smyth. Your vote will be recorded. For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) 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) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 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, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) 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) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 91, Against 12, Abstentions 0.”
“My focus today will therefore be on the failures of Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to show that same respect to those women. They have been campaigning for five and a half years against those failures, and they are still waiting for a full and meaningful apology. They are still waiting even for a meeting with Glasgow City Council. They are still waiting for access to the redress scheme. They are still waiting for answers about why the abuse at Fornethy went unchecked for so many years.”
“I was taken in through the big arch door, and as soon as that door closed, my nightmare began—six weeks of hell I’ve carried with me all of my life.” Those wee girls’ hell was concealed, covered up and kept from parents. The children were made to write “nice” letters home, copied word for word from a blackboard. One survivor said: “On leaving that dark place, my older sister was asked to tell my mum what a good girl I’d been. My five-year-old mind could only feel horror that this was how good girls were treated”. I have listened to these testimonies. Some shared stories that they have never shared with their own families. Today, I wanted to bring those stories to Parliament to give a voice to those brave women, but I recognise that we must respect the on-going criminal and civil proceedings.”
“Most of those girls stayed for four to eight weeks, sometimes more than once. Some were as young as five years old. They were sent away to somewhere new and exciting—a place to rest and recuperate. One survivor said: “I remember getting on a bus with a suitcase. I was going on holiday for the first time. I recall the door opening and seeing a huge staircase. I was so happy and excited”. However, that excitement quickly turned to fear. Rather than rest and recuperation, many of those wee girls were subjected to appalling abuse. My constituent, Marion Reid from Carluke is one of those women. She said: “I travelled in a black cab to Fornethy from Riddrie, where I lived at the time.”
“Presiding Officer, “Trust is sacred. Our trust was broken as little girls—and now, trust in the system that’s supposed to help us and do right by us has been shattered.” Those are the words of the Fornethy survivors. Some of those brave women are with us in the public gallery today. Hundreds more have shared their story. For those who are unfamiliar with that story, those women, along with thousands of others, were sent to Fornethy as vulnerable wee girls between the 1960s and early 1990s. Fornethy was a sprawling 16th-century mansion in the Angus countryside, secluded and surrounded by woodland. It was one of the small number of schools run by Glasgow Corporation, later Strathclyde Regional Council, under its scheme of residential education for disadvantaged children.”
“However, unless we match ambition with action and get the basics right, innovation will remain concentrated in too few sectors and too few places. Let us deliver a truly inclusive, entrepreneurial Scotland, where innovation thrives in every community, rural and urban, and where those who drive our economy forward are backed every step of the way on that important journey. 16:41”
“We need a different approach—one in which our enterprise agencies pivot, as Lorna Slater said, and are empowered to provide long-term strategic support for entrepreneurship; in which colleges are properly funded to deliver the skills that businesses need; in which in-work training and digital education are seen as national priorities; and in which the Scottish Government uses its influence to bring together industry, academia and communities to drive innovation and to share its rewards. That is why Labour is asking the Parliament to support our amendment. Although early stage support matters, it is scale-ups, skills and sustained investment that will deliver lasting impact. Scotland has the talent. We have the ideas.”
“However, two years on, Audit Scotland has, rightly, questioned the lack of clear investment plans and noted weak transparency in how the NSET is being delivered. The most recent progress report offers generalised updates but little clarity on what is working and what is not, or why. We cannot afford a strategy that continues to overpromise and underdeliver.”
“Our colleges are facing growing demand, with long waiting lists for skills-shortage subjects and falling apprenticeship numbers—all while they are being asked to do more with less. The Government is doing the same with our enterprise agencies. South of Scotland Enterprise had its budget slashed by more than 25 per cent— £8.7 million has gone from the organisation that is responsible for supporting SMEs, fostering innovation and creating jobs. Nevertheless, SOSE continues to deliver, from the Techscaler hub in Dumfries to support for innovative, sustainable manufacturing businesses such as the Eco Group in Annan. Ambition needs to be backed by resources, however. The Government claims that it wants to build a world-class entrepreneurial culture—that is a central goal in the national strategy for economic transformation.”
“The number of computer science teachers is falling, and employers are struggling to recruit people with even basic IT skills. When it comes to in-work training, which is critical for both new entrants and workers who are looking to reskill or upskill, many businesses have told the Economy and Fair Work Committee recently that they are deeply concerned about the funding mechanism changes that the Scottish Government is proposing in the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. There is a real risk, and a fear, that those changes will undermine the ability of training providers to meet the needs of businesses, just so that, rather than simply funding our colleges better, the Government can shore up its bad decision to cut college funding by 17 per cent since 2021.”
“Innovation must be inclusive; it must reach rural communities, social enterprises and sectors that have often been overlooked. That includes support for more women and minority entrepreneurs—something that Ana Stewart has rightly championed through the pathways work that she co-authored. Good ideas need more than good intentions, however; they need funding, access and consistent support. On investment, the number of risk capital deals under £10 million fell last year. Larger deals collapsed, with the total value down by 69 per cent. There is a chronic lack of long-term capital, particularly for capital-intensive sectors such as manufacturing and life sciences. We face a growing digital gap when it comes to skills. As Foysol Choudhury rightly said, we are creating far more digital jobs than we are producing qualified graduates.”
“As Daniel Johnston highlighted, the rate of innovation-active businesses in Scotland has fallen from 50 per cent to just 32 per cent, putting us behind every English region and Wales. Despite a small improvement in the number of high-growth firms, Scotland ranks 11th out of 12 UK regions on the Government’s own innovation scorecard. Other key indicators are going in the wrong direction: business R and D investment is low, patent grants have dropped sharply and academic income from business collaboration has fallen in real terms. Entrepreneurs do not need another ambition from Government; they need practical support. They need the investment to scale, the capital to grow and the skills pipeline that meets their needs. On all three fronts, the Government is falling short. Let us be clear: this is not just about tech start-ups in our cities.”
“Scotland has a proud history of invention and innovation, from the telephone to the television, and from the pneumatic tyre to penicillin. That legacy lives on today in the entrepreneurs and innovators across our country who are working hard to build businesses, generate ideas and create jobs in every community. However, if we are serious about empowering those entrepreneurs—not just celebrating them—we need more than press releases or appointments; we need a plan that delivers. While I welcome Ana Stewart’s appointment as chief entrepreneur—and I thank Mark Logan for his valuable work—the motion before us paints a picture that simply does not reflect the reality that is experienced by many businesses.”
“Opportunities for bus services to be organised in a different way have been provided in legislation that the Government has enacted. I accept that the timescale that Mr Smyth and Mr Mundell have put to me means that there is an urgent need for the issue to be resolved. I give Mr Smyth the assurance that I gave to Mr Mundell, which is that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will look at the case to see whether there is anything that the Government can do to help to resolve matters and ensure continuity of services. That is a legitimate expectation from Mr Smyth. Ukraine (Trade and Investment Links)”
“Does the First Minister accept that, given the scale of the services that Stagecoach provides in a region where the company has a near monopoly on school transport and on lifeline subsidised services, we must urgently look at alternatives? We cannot face a situation in which kids might not be able to get to school by bus in August because of actions as part of the current negotiation, with lifeline services taken away. The situation is an example of bus networks in this country being broken. The big companies have a monopoly, and communities miss out most when they walk away. The First Minister: I accept Mr Smyth’s final point, hence the importance of Dumfries and Galloway Council acting in a fashion that enables continuity of services.”
“That is why I raised it with other UK ministers, including the Northern Ireland transport minister, when I met them very recently at the British-Irish Council transport ministers meeting in Belfast. I take the issue very seriously, and I am engaging on it. Members will have to decide whether they want co-operation or not. Road Safety (Highlands and Islands) 2.”
“The reality is that the only investment on the table for meaningful upgrade work is from the UK Government for the bypasses at Crocketford and Springholm. How much does the Scottish Government plan to invest in upgrade work going forward, given that roads are ultimately the responsibility of this Government? Fiona Hyslop: Recommendation 40 of the second strategic transport projects review identifies the importance of continued investment and improvement in that area. We are almost damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we co- operate with the UK Government, we will be attacked for doing so. Do members want co- operation or do they not want co-operation? The A75 is strategically important, in particular to traffic to Northern Ireland and onwards to the Republic of Ireland.”
“Will the minister commit to there being no delay in implementing the new regulations, which were due to come into force this April? I am really concerned about his comments on peatlands. Will he categorically rule out changing the threshold from 40cm to 50cm, given that we have not even implemented what the Parliament agreed to? Jim Fairlie: There are no plans to change anything at this stage.”
“Scotland can lead, but only if we stop repeating the mistakes of the past. That means building an energy future that is not just clean but more democratic, more locally owned and fairer— a future where local people have a real say in how energy is produced and where the benefits stay in the community. We will deliver a just transition only if that transition is community led. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We come to the final speaker in the open debate. You have a generous six minutes, Mr Ewing. 16:15”
“Together, those measures will not just grow community energy but will begin to rebalance the power within our energy system, so that the rewards of renewables stay in the communities that host them. In my foreword to the Scottish Co-operative Party’s “Scotland’s green energy future” policy paper, I said: “We shouldn’t view our net zero targets as a barrier to sustainable economic growth. They are the path to it ... But the fruits of that labour must be fairly shared.” That is the challenge that lies in front of us. Positive action is already under way through Great British Energy, which has committed £4 million to help launch the community energy generation growth fund. That is a clear example of what public ownership can do to support communities. The race for the green jobs of the future is under way.”
“The Scottish Co-operative Party also calls for fast tracking of applications and the waiving of planning fees for community schemes, enabling pension fund investment and strengthening shared ownership in the offshore wind sector. Crucially, it proposes scaling up retrofit co-operatives to tackle fuel poverty directly. Public land and buildings also need to be made more available to community energy groups to unlock new opportunities and remove unnecessary barriers. As we have heard, land reform must guarantee communities the right to access land when it becomes available, especially for local renewables. We need to empower councils and public bodies to lead or partner on projects, whether they be projects for electricity generation or community-led heat networks.”
“The Scottish Co-operative Party’s “Scotland’s green energy future” strategy sets out how to do that, by putting communities rather than corporations at the heart of energy transition. Its proposals, many of which are echoed by Community Energy Scotland, offer a practical and ambitious road map that not only supports the doubling of funding for CARES but proposes the creation of a ring-fenced fund within the Scottish National Investment Bank for large-scale community projects. It also calls for reform of the Scottish Government’s energy procurement strategy to give community generators a route to market. Crucially, it calls for investment in early- stage capacity training and support, so that communities have the ability and capacity to take advantage of ownership opportunities.”
“Does he recognise that the Scottish Government had been calling on the previous UK Government to do that for many years, but no action had been forthcoming? Colin Smyth: I very much recognise that. It is good to see that the change to a Labour-led UK Government has made that difference already. If we want to go beyond damage control and genuinely reset the relationship, we need to give communities meaningful ownership. Scotland has failed to develop the kind of mixed economy in energy that we see elsewhere in Europe. For example, in Denmark, more than 50 per cent of onshore wind farms are owned by communities, co-ops or councils. In Scotland, the equivalent figure is barely 1 per cent. That is not enough to encourage community ownership—it needs to be delivered.”
“However, how that funding is implemented often reinforces the imbalance of power. Developers decide the amount and the conditions, and funding often arrives too late to enable communities to plan strategically. As a result, money is spent, but it is not always spent well. That is why I very much welcome the UK Government’s recent proposals to reform community benefit arrangements, making them mandatory, with clearer standards, earlier engagement and greater transparency over how benefits are calculated and delivered. I hope that the Scottish Government will work with the UK Government to ensure that those changes are implemented effectively in Scotland. Gillian Martin: I am glad that the member has mentioned the actions that are being taken to mandate community benefit.”
“Community-owned energy is about more than providing clean power; it is about changing the relationship between people and the decisions that shape their lives. It is also about moving communities from being bystanders to being active partners and owners. It involves building an energy system that works for people rather than one that just makes corporate profits. That means challenging the idea that the most that a community can hope for is a benefit payment that is decided by someone else. I appreciate that community benefit payments are not insignificant. South of Scotland Enterprise has estimated that, over the next 35 years, community benefit funding from onshore wind in the south could total nearly £900 million. At a time when public sector budgets are being squeezed, such payments are making a difference to communities.”
“However, we did not get 11 per cent of the jobs, and not a single one of those turbines was built in the region or, indeed, anywhere in Scotland. At the same time, the region has some of the highest levels of fuel poverty in the country. Many of those cold, damp homes sit next door to the very wind farms that are exporting electricity far from the communities that host them. That disconnect is fuelling a growing resentment towards net zero policies, which is worrying, and it is being exploited by those who want to scrap climate action altogether. We will not meet our climate targets unless we do far more to take communities with us. One of the best ways to do that is to give people a real stake in their energy future, including community ownership over decisions, infrastructure and benefits.”
“At a time when people feel more disconnected than ever from those whose decisions shape their lives, and too many people believe that power sits too far from those who it affects, it is timely to debate the imbalance of power that exists in the energy sector. Too often, communities feel that the drive to net zero and the growth in renewable energy is something that is done to them, not for them, and certainly not with them. It is a sector that is dominated by large, foreign-owned multinationals, many of which are publicly owned—just not by us. It is also a sector in which not only the wind farms, but, increasingly, the supply chain jobs and the profits, are offshored. By 2019, my home region of Dumfries and Galloway, with 2 per cent of Scotland’s population, hosted 11 per cent of Scotland’s onshore wind turbines.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Smyth. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“If, after that process, my concerns remain and I find that I cannot support the bill in its final form, I know that denying people the choice of having an assisted death will have consequences. No matter how brilliant our health and care professionals might be—and they are—and no matter how good our palliative care might be, which in most cases it is, there are conditions for which we cannot guarantee that every sufferer would have a pain-free, dignified death. If the bill were in place it would not mean that more people would die. However, if we got it right, it would mean that fewer people would suffer. 15:51”
“Terminal illness takes a huge emotional and financial toll, and too many people in Scotland are still forced to sell their homes to pay for their care. It is easy to see how someone might feel like a burden, and it is understandable that we might be concerned about coercion, especially in situations where people are vulnerable, such as when there is domestic abuse. I hear those concerns. If the version of the bill that is before us today were its final one, and if today’s vote were the final one, I would not support the bill. However, the Parliament has not yet had the opportunity to address those concerns and test the arguments, and I believe that we owe it to our constituents to do that.”
“To qualify for assisted dying, a person must have lived in Scotland for 12 months and be registered with a Scottish GP. However, some constituents in my South Scotland region are registered with GPs just over the border, in England, where their nearest practice is—and I suspect that the reverse is also true for some people. When I asked the Scottish Government how many people are in that situation, it did not know the answer. However, just one person is one too many if it means that someone would be excluded from choosing assisted dying simply because they were registered with a GP across the border from where they lived. That aspect must be addressed. I know that many people’s deepest concerns are about patients potentially feeling like a burden or about the possibility of their being coerced.”
“Sixteen is too young, so I welcome Liam McArthur’s commitment to lodge an amendment to raise the age to 18, and I support calls by Children’s Hospices Across Scotland for protections to be extended up to the age of 25. I also have concerns about the definition of terminal illness in the bill. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard strong evidence, including from the Faculty of Advocates, calling for a clearer definition and a time-bound prognosis. I differ from the committee and from Liam McArthur in that I believe that consideration should be given to a six-month timeframe, extended to 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions. Without that, we risk including people who are not near the end of life. One issue that the committee overlooked is how the eligibility rules would affect people in cross- border communities.”
“He said that her goodbye was beautiful and peaceful and that her family’s grief, although still profound, was made just a little bit more bearable. In the months that I have spent reflecting on the bill, I have listened to those with a terminal illness, those whose loved ones have experienced assisted dying and those whose loved ones, denied that choice, ended their own lives—often alone, traumatically, in fear and without dignity. I have also heard deeply powerful testimony from those who oppose not so much the principle as the practicalities of the bill, who question whether the safeguards are strong enough to protect the most vulnerable. If the bill progresses today, we must hear those concerns and Parliament must seek to address them, starting with the proposed age.”
“That principle has become practice for us to learn from in a growing number of nations around the world. One story that has stayed with me is that of Brittany Maynard, who was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 29. Brittany left her home in California to move to Oregon, which was then one of the few US states to allow assisted dying. The fact that she had to uproot her life and cross a state border to access that right is deeply relevant to us, as we consider this bill at a time when our colleagues in the UK Parliament are considering theirs. Brittany’s husband, Dan Diaz, spoke to me and others about how simply having the option of assisted dying gave Brittany peace. It let her spend her final days on her terms, at home with her loved ones.”
“When a constituent looks you in the eye and says, “I am dying. When my time comes, I want the right to choose how I pass in my final days with dignity,” it is hard to respond, “That is not your decision—it is mine.” I have had many such conversations with many constituents who are dying, who are afraid not of death but of how they will die. They fear pain, they fear the loss of control, and they fear the indignity. They are not suicidal; they are terminally ill and they want to live, but they also want to have a choice about how they die when the time comes. Respecting their dignity, their right to compassion and their ability to make a deeply personal decision is one of the reasons that I do not oppose the principle of the right to choose assisted dying.”
“Scotland’s fishing industry deserves better. Tim Eagle: Will the member take an intervention? Colin Smyth: I think that I need to wind up. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is concluding. Colin Smyth: We need serious leadership, not crocodile tears from the party that is responsible for many of the failures that are affecting the industry today. We should have had a debate about how we can use the extensive powers that the Parliament has to stand up for our fishers, reform the system and deliver a sustainable, long- term future for a sector that is vital to Scotland’s economy. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Emma Harper will be the final speaker in the open debate. 17:15”
“No business involved in abuse or illegality should be given access to our shared public resources, whether through financial support in the form of grants or valuable fishing quotas. We need reform. Quotas and grants should come with conditions to protect biodiversity, drive sustainability, protect workers and support local economies. The way in which we allocate quotas arguably has as much impact as the level of the quota that we negotiate. However, we need better relationships with our neighbours to get the best deal for our fishers. That means building a stable and grown-up relationship with the EU, not one that is based on the paranoia and point-scoring of the Tories. There is absolutely no basis for media speculation on a link between fisheries and defence in current talks between the UK and the EU—that is what prompted this debate.”
“Section 25 of the UK Fisheries Act 1998 says that quotas should be distributed on the basis of “environmental, social and economic factors.” However, the Scottish Government still relies on a system that ignores compliance history, it fails to incentivise low-impact fishing and it overlooks illegal practices such as illegal discards, modern slavery and human trafficking. In Annan in my region, victims were exploited aboard fishing vessels in a case that exposed the gaping lack of due diligence. When I asked the cabinet secretary in a number of written questions what checks had been done before the awarding of quotas or grants, the answer was that the Government was “continuing to look into this matter”.—[Written Answers, 7 October 2024; S6W-30076.] That is not good enough.”
“Under Boris Johnson, the Fisheries Act 2020 was passed—a law that is, frankly, not far removed from the common fisheries policy that the Tories now say they oppose. How dare Conservative MSPs pretend to champion Scotland’s fisheries when their party was the one that sold out the sector. Our fishing communities from Peterhead to Eyemouth are vital to Scotland’s rural and island economies. In 2023, Scottish vessels landed more than £683 million-worth of seafood. I want to see that grow further, but many of those communities remain in areas of multiple deprivation under the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. Why? Because the wealth is not fairly shared. The outdated fixed quota allocation system allows a handful of big businesses to dominate while smaller fishers and coastal communities lose out.”
“It is appropriate that the Conservative Party has brought forward a debate on the damage that can be caused if you have a botched deal with the EU, because, frankly, it is well qualified in delivering such bad deals. Not content with wrecking our economy through their economic illiteracy, nor with putting party before country by calling the EU referendum in the first place, the Tories went on to deliver a Brexit deal that broke every single promise that they made to the fishing industry. Fishers were promised a sea of opportunity. What they got was a wave of betrayal—red tape, export chaos and continued EU access to UK waters, without a meaningful better deal for our own fleet.”
“Labour’s amendment recognises the importance of the action that is needed at Grangemouth and of a proper delivery plan. We owe it not just to the workers at Grangemouth, but to the young people across Scotland who are wondering whether they have a future in their home towns, and to the communities in every part of the country who are still waiting and hoping for the just transition that this Government promised them. Let us not let them down in the way that workers at the Grangemouth refinery have been let down today. 15:48”
“A lack of housing is stifling economic growth; poor transport is holding back investment; and a lack of skilled workers is putting at risk the region’s ability to play its part in the transition. That situation cannot go on in communities across Scotland. If we are serious about delivering a just transition, we need to back it with action—a proper industrial strategy that is rooted in Scotland’s strengths. There should be no more exporting of renewable energy supply-chain jobs abroad and no more bridges built with Chinese steel, turbines manufactured in Indonesia or ferries built in Turkey. We should be creating those jobs here, in Grangemouth, Motherwell, Stranraer and Dumfries. I welcome much of what is in the Scottish Government’s motion today, but the fact that it is silent on the Government’s role speaks volumes.”
“We have the highest level of fuel poverty in Scotland, the lowest wages and a population that is declining, with too many of our young people leaving because they cannot access the apprenticeships, housing or opportunities that they need to stay. How has the Scottish Government responded? With a 22 per cent cut to the budget of the South of Scotland Enterprise Agency; reduced funding for colleges, which forces them to turn away young people who are desperate to train; and a continued failure to invest in crucial infrastructure, such as the A75 and the A77, which are vital links for business to Northern Ireland and the EU. The Just Transition Commission could not have been clearer in its recent report on Dumfries and Galloway.”
“We need urgency to attract investment, change regulation, develop infrastructure and secure the jobs that remain at Grangemouth and, crucially, those supply-chain jobs across the country. The situation with the refinery at Grangemouth is not an isolated failure of the Government to turn warm words on a just transition into reality; it is part of a pattern of inaction, and I see that in my region of Dumfries and Galloway. That area should be at the forefront of Scotland’s net zero future, because we have the land, the wind and the water. However, we do not have the investment. Dumfries and Galloway is home to more than 11 per cent of Scotland’s wind turbines, but members would struggle to find a fair share of the renewable jobs in the communities that host them, and they certainly would not find any communities there that manufacture them.”
“When the former energy minister met Petroineos in February 2022, he was warned about the likely closure of the refinery. That was more than three years ago. However, when the committee published its just transition report on Grangemouth in 2023, we said: “There is no evidence of a clear, joined-up approach across government. No timeline. No worker-led strategy. No plan.” We had two Governments asleep on the job. Since then, we have seen a change of UK Government and, within months, a commitment of £200 million to support a clean industrial future for Grangemouth through project willow, which involves biofuels, hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel, and is a road map to protect skills and secure investment. When it comes to the delivery of project willow, we cannot afford a repeat of the drift and delay that defined the past five years.”
“When the Labour Government saw a risk, it acted urgently, decisively and strategically. I only wish that when the then UK Government and the current Scottish Government were first made aware of the risk to the refinery at Grangemouth, we had seen that same urgency. As we have heard, production has now ceased at the refinery. Our thoughts are, first and foremost, with the workers and their families. Those workers kept the national asset running for decades and deserved better. They should have been at the heart of a proper plan for transition years ago. Instead, they have been let down and left behind. In evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee in November last year, Petroineos told us that it had approached the Scottish Government more than five years ago about the need to transition the Grangemouth site.”
“There is no doubt that these are turbulent economic times. Global instability, shifting trade policy and the urgent need to respond to the climate crisis are reshaping the way in which industry must operate. The question today is not about recognising challenges, but about rising to meet them. That is what the UK Labour Government did in acting to support British Steel—not just protecting jobs at the site of our last blast furnaces, but safeguarding the very future of domestic steel making. That matters in Scotland. Hundreds of skilled jobs at Dalzell, and in the future—I hope—at Clydebridge, depend on the success of British Steel. Our infrastructure, our defence and our manufacturing and resilience all rely on having a steel industry that we can call our own.”