Liam Kerr
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Producing the same amount of electricity through ground-mounted solar—a technology that I stress I support and that must form part of our energy mix—requires many times more land. Most of us would agree that reducing emissions matters.”
“In the years since I first contributed to a debate in this Parliament on new nuclear power in Scotland, four of the six parties in the chamber have come to support the proposition that I put forward, in some form or other. In that, they are on the side of the majority of the public, which supports nuclear power.”
“No wonder: electric vehicles, heat pumps, hydrogen production, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and high-tech industries all require enormous amounts of reliable power. That means nuclear. However, we do not just need reliable power. We need local power.”
“In 2019, it even legislated for a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, although it scrapped that target five years later because it could not meet it.”
“In fact, over the year, wind turbines operate only around 25 to 40 per cent of the time. The point is that we must be able to guarantee electricity when homes, businesses and hospitals need it.”
“For more than 65 years, the STV North news programme has done far more than simply report the news. As Maggie Chapman said, it has given a voice to rural and regional communities. It has reflected local priorities and provided scrutiny, balance and accountability at every level of Government and public life.”
The complete record
Every one of 538 lines we hold for Liam Kerr, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 11.
“A report by Future Economy Scotland found that only one green job is created for every three that are lost in the oil and gas supply chain. The new jobs at Grangemouth are extremely welcome, but does the cabinet secretary recognise that there will be no true just transition, whether at Grangemouth, Mossmorran, Harbour Energy or elsewhere, without removal of the windfall tax by the UK Government and a reversal of the Scottish Government’s long-standing presumption against new oil and gas? Gillian Martin: The member would expect me, in my role, to be speaking to representatives from across the energy sector wholesale, and they are squarely putting out the fact—this is not just the oil and gas industry, but also the supply chain and the renewables industry—that it is the EPL that is causing the most damage.”
“In order to address the issues that we have heard about, as well as the legislative framework, the Scottish Government’s 2021 programme for government promised a legal aid reform bill during this parliamentary session. Given that there is only three months to dissolution, has the Government broken another promise? Siobhian Brown: No, and we are all aware of the timetable for this parliamentary session. There have been many members’ bills as well as Government ones. I have been engaging with the legal profession for nearly three years now, and I have ensured that we will take forward legal aid reform in the next parliamentary session. In the meantime, there is a lot of secondary legislation going ahead now that will be delivered in this parliamentary session. Carers Allowance Supplement 4.”
“High Street Retailers in South Scotland (Budget) 5.”
“With the likes of Stephen Flynn and John Swinney previously demanding an even higher EPL and one without investment allowances, I am very pleased that the Scottish National Party has reversed its position to align with Conservative calls to scrap the levy. Will the Government now also reverse its presumption against oil and gas, which is doing so much damage to north-east jobs and the north-east economy? Shona Robison: That is very much a rewriting of the history of the energy profits levy. It was the Conservatives who introduced the EPL, and we did not support its extension to 2029, which happened under the previous Conservative UK Government, or its further extension to 2030 and the increase in the rate that was confirmed at last year’s UK autumn budget. The Conservatives are fooling no one on this point.”
“In my justice policy paper “Cracking Down on Crime”, which was released last month, Scottish Conservatives set out a number of initiatives that we would bring in if we were to form the next Government. We must back the police not only with proper funding and resources, but with the tools that they say that they need to tackle dangerous behaviour, such as enabling them to restore visible policing across Scotland, especially on our high streets. We must take a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour, including the misuse of e- bikes, with tougher penalties for reckless e-bike and e-scooter use, intimidating clothing and the harassment of pedestrians.”
“There are specialist road policing officers who carry out vehicle examinations and regular patrols to examine and combat the issue. Nonetheless, our police feel constrained, because chasing a rider in a vehicle pursuit could result in serious injury or worse to the rider, to the police or to the public. Using other methods such as DNA tagging spray to tag illegal e-bikes and their riders often allows for seizures and cross-referencing with other crimes. Police are also dependent on public- reported sightings to help them figure out who is using such vehicles and where they are being stored. Often, police are able to overlap that information with CCTV footage from across the city. However, that is the operational aspect. If we, in this place, do not act to support the police and communities properly, we also own the consequences.”
“As e-bikes are often used on roads illegally, they are frequently linked with antisocial behaviour, the intimidation of communities and danger to other road users and pedestrians. As Sue Webber said, we also know that e-bikes are being used to deal drugs. She is right that the underfunding and underresourcing of the police makes it challenging for them to deal with the issue, but the north-east police do what they can. They run a community action team, which investigates issues such as e-bikes and the antisocial behaviour that is associated with them. The police have seen many positive results and have managed to seize e-bikes and charge individuals. They have experienced officers who know much about this menace.”
“I congratulate Sue Webber on bringing the debate to the chamber, because the issue is—as we have just heard—a real menace throughout the country. In Aberdeen, Union Street is already suffering as a result of swingeing business rates; the damage to our oil and gas industry caused by the Scottish Government and the UK Government; short- sighted and damaging council policies such as a low-emission zone and bus gates; and the chronic underfunding and underresourcing of the police, which led to their piloting of a non-investigation of crimes approach. We can throw into that mix e-bikes and e- scooters. People have become ever more reluctant to venture forth, as users of the bikes— clad in black with their faces covered, generally without lights and often in groups—are racing up the pavements, hurling anything from abuse to consumables.”
“Liam Kerr: I will not take an intervention, because I am running out of time. Decision time is still 10 or 12 minutes away. There is still time for those MSPs to reconsider. I urge them to do what is right, and not what they have been told to do. That means voting for the Conservative amendment to establish an inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet Secretary Angela Constance will close on behalf of the Scottish Government. 16:53”
“I am truly stunned that, after hearing harrowing testimony; hearing about the lack of data on the scale of the problem and the lack of knowledge of victims’ experiences; hearing about where institutions are failing; and hearing yesterday’s reports that Professor Alexis Jay thinks that, ultimately, there could be a full grooming gangs inquiry, Scottish National Party MSPs will vote against Russell Findlay’s amendment, which simply instructs there to be a full grooming gangs inquiry in Scotland. It appears that, having been presented with another opportunity to launch a grooming gangs inquiry, those MSPs will again reject it, simply because something far short of an inquiry has been floated today, without our having been given any details about it. Audrey Nicoll: Will the member give way?”
“Secondly, today, the Scottish Government has asked Professor Jay to review the handling of complaints against grooming gangs. Although, as Martin Whitfield pointed out, we lack details, surely that is an admission—if ever one were needed—that, as we always suspected, the strategic group is not covering what is required. However, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is right—we must understand the extent and scale of this.”
“Just today, Professor Alexis Jay was on record as saying: “we do not have a clear or reliable picture of what the present situation is in Scotland” and “we do not know enough of the scale of child exploitation in Scotland”. Despite that, as Sharon Dowey told us, the cabinet secretary has repeatedly stated in this chamber that there is no need for a full inquiry, because the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group delivers the necessary coverage and oversight. That assertion is found wanting. First, a freedom of information request to find out what the group was doing was responded to with sweeping redactions and vast sections blanked out, including material that would have shown whether the group was meaningfully considering grooming gangs.”
“I was also shocked by what we have heard about the appalling lack of data and evidence on things such as the scale of the problem, how cases are handled and where the system is failing victims. Pauline McNeill and others reminded us that Baroness Casey said that there is insufficient data. According to the minute of a meeting in October, the Scottish Government’s own chief statistician said that the point that the data on those crimes was “incomplete or inaccurate” was “a good starting point”. The child sexual abuse and exploitation workforce deep dive report confirms that by stating: “There is a lack of robust data on the scale of child sexual victimisation in Scotland”.”
“I have been shocked and stunned listening to the debate, partly from hearing some of the horrific details of this most heinous and vile of crimes. Russell Findlay told us about victims Peter Haynes, Stuart McMillan and Susie Henderson. Pauline McNeill and others reminded us of Taylor, who spoke out so courageously recently, including about terrible institutional failures. Russell Findlay also spoke of Kevin Sutherland, who ultimately took his own life. We must also not forget that, in October, five members of a grooming gang in Dundee were jailed after raping and sexually abusing 10 women—some as young as 16—and that, last January, seven were jailed after findings that three victims under the age of 13 had been subjected to horrific sexual abuse and violence in Glasgow over a seven-year period.”
“I move amendment S6M-19980.2, to insert at end: “, and, in doing so, to give consideration to the continuing work of the statutory Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, which is considering the abuse of children in care in Scotland, the effects of that abuse and if changes to the law, policies or procedures are needed; recognises the independence of Police Scotland and that the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 stipulates that the Chief Constable is responsible for the policing of Scotland, and is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority, and acknowledges that the information and data being gathered by members of the National Child Abuse and Exploitation Strategic Group is necessary to ensure that informed evidence-based decisions are taken on the need for further independent inquiries or reviews.” 16:13”
“Jenny Gilruth: Above all, we must remember that this is about better protecting Scotland’s children and young people from abuse. I hope that Parliament will support the Government’s approach and the amendment in my name.”
“Although it is, quite rightly, a matter for Lady Smith and the Scottish child abuse inquiry to determine how to take into account potential group-based sexual abuse, in cases where any conduct that constitutes grooming is alleged, the inquiry can, if the circumstances allow it, consider whether those cases are within the inquiry’s terms of reference. The national review that I have announced today, alongside Professor Jay’s leadership of the national strategic group and Police Scotland’s on- going work, will provide a more accurate and focused picture of the scale of and response to group-based sexual harm in Scotland. That will ensure that informed and evidence-based decisions can be taken on the need for further independent inquiries and reviews. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please conclude, cabinet secretary.”
“Does that mean that the Government will reject Russell Findlay’s amendment calling for a grooming gangs inquiry? Jenny Gilruth: As I have set out to Parliament today, the Government has to analyse the evidence that is put before us. As Alexis Jay has said, and as we have heard from Ms McNeill, we do not yet have the evidence base to substantiate that decision. However, I reassure the member that that is under active consideration. I highlight that we should not forget that, in Scotland, we have a live public inquiry, which is already hearing directly from survivors of child sexual abuse.”
“When the 2016 act was going through Parliament, it was acknowledged by Lord Cullen, who did the review that underpinned the act—and in evidence that the Scottish Government gave and in some of the contributions of members in the chamber—that an FAI into a death overseas would be rare. The reason for that is that, without the co-operation of the domestic authority overseas, formidable hurdles exist. Of course, we cannot compel witnesses who are outwith the United Kingdom to participate. I hope that I have articulated those formidable hurdles accurately and fairly to those who have lost someone, such as”
“I note the cabinet secretary’s position that the 2016 legislation is operating as intended, as we have just heard. However, no FAIs into deaths overseas have happened so far. Families such as that of Montrose man, Davy Cornock, have been told for years that the issue will be sorted, but nothing has been delivered. I acknowledge the point that has just been raised, but does the cabinet secretary believe that it might be time for a committee-led, post- legislative review of the 2016 act to ensure that it was—and remains—fit for purpose? Angela Constance: That would be a matter for the relevant parliamentary committee. The Government would stand by to give evidence on that as required.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recently published “Independent Review of Creative Scotland”. (S6O-05234)”
“We know that when Governments get it wrong, ordinary people end up paying the price, and we firmly believe that public services should never have to absorb the cost of financial or legal incompetence from a Government here that, increasingly, looks and sounds completely knackered. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Lorna Slater. You have up to four minutes, Ms Slater. 17:45”
“It is a complex labyrinth of exemptions and reliefs—and that may well have been what allowed the error to go undetected for so long. It is not only in financial legislation that the Government falters. Only last week, we were summoned to the chamber to consider a phantom heat in buildings bill, only for the Government to admit that it had no intention of introducing such a bill. Those are not the actions of a Government with a clear plan; they are the actions of a Government that has run out of ideas and is rapidly running out of time. As I have said, we will support the bill, if only to ensure that the Scottish people do not pick up the tab for that mistake.”
“Like Mr Hoy, I would like a reassurance that hard-pressed councils will not be expected to bear any burden for a blunder that was not of their making. Given the minister’s response to my intervention, I am still not clear whether any debt recovery action that has commenced in the past few days—or could potentially commence in the coming weeks—will be sound or whether it could potentially have legal costs attached to it. The Government will be well aware that we are approaching a moment when the Scottish people will have the opportunity to hold it accountable. Its record on finances and taxation is woeful. We face a looming fiscal gap and, even with this legislative fix, the non-domestic rates system is not functioning as it should.”
“A billion pounds has been spent on ferries that still do not sail, another billion has been spent on a prison that was supposed to cost £100 million, and millions more have been wasted on legal fees defending the SNP Government’s incompetence—and I hope that there will be no more legal fees as a result of this other mistake. Failure and mismanagement have already drained billions of pounds of public money. It is fortunate that, this time, someone eventually did their homework, because the country is well past the point at which it can afford to keep paying for the Government’s errors. Even though it appears that the issue was caught in time, there may yet be hidden costs for local authorities, such as for legal and financial advice to protect themselves from exposure as collection agents.”
“I am curious. The member says that the Labour Party will support the bill. Does he not have any concerns about the legal issues raised earlier by my colleague Murdo Fraser? Mark Griffin: I do have concerns about the legal issues. However, as the Presiding Officer said, all legislation that is passed in this place will ultimately face the scrutiny of the courts. What I am more concerned about is the Scottish taxpayer having to foot a £350 million bill for a mistake of the Scottish Government’s making. That is the consequence of our not passing this legislation. Costly mistakes from this Government are becoming all too familiar.”
“In 2026, they will have the chance to vote for a Scottish Labour Government that will work in genuine good-faith partnership with the UK Government to grow our economy and deliver for the people of Scotland. 17:03”
“Michael Marra: —of extra spending for the Scottish purse. Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: No, thank you, sir. The SNP are not serious people, and their own woeful record of financial mismanagement and incompetence proves it. More than £6.7 billion of money has been wasted on ferries that do not sail, prisons that do not get built and ever-increasing Government largesse, not to mention the three chaotic emergency budgets. If SNP members want to talk about stability, I point out that the Scottish Government has had three emergency budgets in subsequent years. To top it all, there is a £1 billion underspend, although SNP members cry “Austerity!” at every opportunity. Scots are sick of the tired SNP Government.”
“Some of the culprits are sitting on the opposite side of the chamber. The budget also delivers increased headroom, which—to be frank—we need in order to ensure that we can bear down on that public debt in the long run. I agree with my colleague Davy Russell, who was right to ask whether the SNP should reflect on whether it can call itself a good-faith partner in that process. In the past year alone, the SNP has made in excess of £95 billion of spending demands of the UK Government while, at the same time, opposing every single revenue-raising measure. Ivan McKee talked about wondering where the money comes from, and he mentioned tax rises. That is what raises the money, Mr McKee. You have to put in place the tough decisions around taxes to get the £10.3 billion— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair.”
“In supporting working people, it gives a helping hand to those with the least and increases the minimum wage, which will benefit 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots. Introducing a mansion tax—something that the SNP Government has, so far, refused to do— will mean that owners of properties that are valued at more than £2 million in other parts of the UK will pay their fair share. There is also the first-ever permanent real-terms increase to the universal credit standard allowance. Those are Labour choices, but they can be made only because of the tough choices that have been made since July last year. Paul McLennan was right to highlight the size of the public debt across the UK. I recommend to him an instructive video, “Britain’s debt, explained with custard creams”, which shows how we got to that position.”
“I personally made the case to the chancellor on behalf of the more than one in four children in my home city of Dundee who are growing up in poverty. Degrading, grinding child poverty is a moral offence that limits the life chances and potential of far too many in Scotland, and the extreme cost of dealing with the consequences of child poverty has an impact on our public finances that lasts for decades. Scrapping the two-child cap alone will lift 1,000 children in Dundee, and 95,000 across Scotland, out of poverty. To be frank, that is why I am in Parliament, doing this job. That progress is won through rebuilding the foundations of our economy and the stability of our public finances. It is diligent decency, it is right and it is just. This Labour budget redistributes wealth.”
“Michael Marra: As, I am sure, Mr Fraser might want to acknowledge—I said this to Mr Hoy earlier—people often tell us to look at the markets, and the pound is up and the cost of borrowing is down since the chancellor took her seat. It is absolutely clear that the budget has received a positive reception in the marketplace, and rightly so, because it brings stability to the public finances. Scottish Labour has consistently called for the scrapping of the two-child cap, but, more importantly, it is something that we have worked to deliver. I pay tribute to Anas Sarwar and Paul O’Kane, who have worked consistently, behind the scenes and in front of cameras, to tell the story as to why that should happen.”
“16:59 Michael Marra: The Labour Government is bringing stability to our national finances in a turbulent world, and it is right that we strike a balance between what the country can afford and when it can afford it. I am therefore delighted that, today, our Labour Government scrapped the two- child cap. As a result of the stability that is being increasingly won, that legacy of the Tories has finally gone. Murdo Fraser: Has Mr Marra had a chance to look at business reaction to the budget today and the comments from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce? The SCC’s Liz Cameron has described it as a “disappointing and damaging” budget that puts business on the brink. Where are the member’s pro-business credentials now?”
“There is the growth that the Conservatives have been looking for—it is in the net zero economy, not in the oil and gas industry, which is declining by 7 per cent a year. The CBI also says that, in Scotland alone, the net zero economy contributes £9.1 billion—about 4.9 per cent of the country’s total gross value added—and supports 100,700 full-time jobs, so nearly one in five Scottish workers are employed in a role related to net zero. That is what the future looks like, and it is where investment would create the foundation for a successful long-term economy. Flogging the dying horse of oil and gas is not only endangering our future; it is not preparing us for it, with Scotland risking being left behind as investment moves into technologies and industries that are designed for a net zero world.”
“We owe it to the people who work in the oil and gas industry and the communities that depend on it to be honest about the future, which is not in oil and gas. It is high time that we accepted that and came up with alternative plans, or we will have more communities being suddenly surprised, as the ones that depend on Grangemouth and Mossmorran have been. We knew for a long time that those communities needed alternative plans, and pretending that the oil and gas industry can carry on for ever does them a disservice. The alternative involves an economic transformation towards a net zero economy. The CBI reports that the UK’s net zero economy has become a powerhouse of job creation and economic expansion, with 10.1 per cent growth in total economic value being supported by the net zero economy since 2023.”
“Will Lorna Slater take an intervention? Lorna Slater: No. I took loads of interventions in my opening speech. The oil and gas sector is not a growth industry in the UK, and an industry that is experiencing such a precipitous decline cannot form the basis for the growth that the Tories want. The Scottish Conservatives do workers and investors in the industry a disservice by pretending that any amount of policy change or investment can take the industry back to where it once was or put it on a growth trajectory. Until they accept that the industry is on its way out, they cannot develop transition plans for the alternative industries that will grow and provide a stable future for the economy.”
“Accordingly, this Parliament must vote for the motion in Douglas Lumsden’s name and reject the amendments in order to force the immediate and unequivocal reversal of the Scottish Government’s presumption against new oil and gas, and continue to demand that Labour reverse course on the energy profits levy. Economy”
“As Scottish Conservative speakers have set out, using the North Sea is environmentally beneficial and economically prudent, it supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and it helps our energy security. Ending North Sea oil production, which the SNP’s presumption and Labour’s appalling budget from today will make happen, means that demand will increasingly be satisfied by imports, an approach that increases emissions, exports harm, funds dubious regimes, undermines energy security and erodes trust in climate policy. It is unethical policy disguised as environmental virtue signalling.”
“Even the small proportion that is used in this country is at a price that is set on global markets, so this is not about displacing other exports. Liam Kerr: I am afraid that Mr Harvie has shown his ignorance in that intervention because, in reality, the issue is about where we refine the oil, and a report that was published by Wood Mackenzie this week shows that 65 per cent of UK-exported crude comes back to the UK as refined product. We have to get real about this, and we have to get data and evidence into the debate, because, as the motion notes, ideology will not cut it. We will continue to use oil and gas for plastics, for industry, for heating and for the transition to renewables. The ethical question is not whether we use those resources but where we source them from.”
“Liam Kerr: Can I see whether I have time at the end, please? To continue on the human cost, North Sea operations are among the most tightly regulated in the world. They have strict emissions standards, strong worker protections and transparent oversight. Replacing North Sea oil and gas with imported hydrocarbons transfers the environmental impact, the industrial risk and the human burden to countries that have weaker regulations, labour standards and safety enforcement. It is an out of sight, out of mind approach, and I find that morally unjustifiable and ethically indefensible. Patrick Harvie: As I was challenged on the issue of imports and exports, I will simply point out something that I think the member already knows, which is that the large majority of domestic production goes to export. It is not used in this country.”
“In a typically measured way, Willie Rennie told us of the jobs that will go, and are already going— hundreds of thousands of jobs, both direct and indirect. When Sarah Boyack speaks of a transition, I remind her of the Scottish Trades Union Congress analysis, which shows that wind energy creates just one job for every £1 million that is spent, in contrast to more than 13 jobs per every £1 million that is spent in oil and gas. One of the few correct things that Kevin Stewart said in his speech was that there is no transition without the oil and gas industry. The SNP and Labour’s ideological closure of the North Sea does nothing to reduce global consumption; it just slashes British jobs and, as Jamie Halcro Johnston flagged, it torpedoes the economy. Kevin Stewart: Will the member take an intervention?”
“Conservative colleagues have made the positive case for why that must be from the North Sea. I argue that the SNP and Labour’s position, both today and in years past, is an ethical failure. Patrick Harvie absolutely missed that, since demand will not reduce, all reductions that the UK makes in North Sea oil and gas must necessarily be replaced by imports from countries such as the United States, Qatar, or Russia. In Fergus Ewing’s intervention, he gave members hard data on the fact that oil and gas from those countries carries a far higher carbon footprint. The result is that, although we cut domestic production, global emissions rocket. Patrick Harvie: Will the member take an intervention? Liam Kerr: Perhaps in a second, Mr Harvie. What of the human cost of the domestic cut?”
“Oil and gas is also required to make plastics, which make our medical equipment, food packaging, phones, cars, and the turbine blades and nacelle covers of wind turbines. Demand for plastics is not falling; it is rising. Plastics are entirely synthetic and are made from oil and gas. They drive 12 per cent of global oil demand. By 2030, it will be a third, and by 2050, it will be half. Brian Whittle: My colleague is making a good point. Does he agree that the oil that is extracted from the North Sea is very high grade? It is used in the petrochemical industry and is probably in all our clothes. Without it, the national health service would collapse. Liam Kerr: Brian Whittle makes exactly my point: there is no debate about whether we use oil and gas; we are debating where we get it from.”
“Douglas Lumsden’s motion opens by regretting the “ideological drive to end North Sea oil and gas exploration and production”. Nothing in the debate contributions or in the amendments to the motion from the SNP, the Greens, or Labour suggests that those parties have the least recourse to the facts or, indeed, practical reality. They have failed to confront a simple, but overarching, truth: our society runs on oil and gas. When Rhoda Grant makes facile comments about not using oil and gas, she utterly fails to recognise the demand for oil and gas to heat our homes, power our factories and run the trains— Rhoda Grant: Will the member take an intervention? Liam Kerr: Not just now, thank you. Rhoda Grant: You mentioned me. Liam Kerr: Not just now, thank you.”
“What has been brought to the chamber today is an extremely serious matter. I was in the chamber last week, answering questions in relation to the quote and the way that that has been resolved, and I think that what we need to focus on now are the actions that have been taken to deal with these abhorrent crimes and support the victims who have suffered through them.”
“A Scottish Conservative freedom of information request revealed that, on 14 October, the cabinet secretary’s own strategic group corrected the misrepresentation of Professor Jay in the presence of SNP ministers. Shortly after that, officials briefed the justice secretary in writing, yet the Official Report remained uncorrected, Parliament remained uninformed and the cabinet secretary failed to attend for my urgent question, even remotely, to fess up. The public learned the truth only when journalists investigated. Will the minister explain—or perhaps the cabinet secretary could, as she is sitting in the chamber— why no correction was made for weeks, and why it took a media investigation to reveal the truth? Natalie Don-Innes: I think that Mr Kerr is focusing on the wrong areas here.”
“RAAC-affected home owners in Aberdeen’s Torry who have already sold their homes under value fear paying tax on the compensation and losing benefits. That would pile yet more injustice on a nightmare that they have faced for years. Will the cabinet secretary instruct officials to help Aberdeen City Council prevent that from coming to pass? Màiri McAllan: Those are entirely matters for Aberdeen City Council to work through with the residents of Torry, and I encourage it to do so. General Practitioner Appointments 5.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Professor Alexis Jay’s comments on grooming gang inquiries were misrepresented during a debate on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.”
“Neil Gray: I met Ambulance Service staff last month, when I visited the ARI, and I heard directly from them the concerns that they have and about the incredible work that has been done by the hospital ambulance liaison officer—HALO—staff at the front door of our hospitals. I pay tribute to them for that work. I am also impressed by the work that is being done by Ambulance Service colleagues and by our unscheduled care leadership in NHS Grampian to come forward with an improvement plan for the health board. That is being overseen by the oversight board and the assurance board, which is relevant to NHS Grampian’s escalation status. We have committed additional funding to NHS Grampian for its unscheduled care pathway work.”
“NHS Grampian is already in crisis. Despite the best efforts of hard-working crews who are doing their absolute best, the average emergency ambulance turnaround time at Aberdeen royal infirmary is now almost two hours, and one in 10 ambulances are stacked for over four hours. That is in the context of a £68 million overspend this year. Incredibly, neither the cabinet secretary nor his overdue plan even mention NHS Grampian. What precisely will the cabinet secretary and his overdue, last-minute plan do to guarantee that ambulance response times will not get even worse for the people of the north-east this winter?”