Rachael Hamilton
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Despite Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, declaring for me my entry in the register of members’ interests after her statement on non-domestic rates on Tuesday, I failed to do so myself.”
“I am very concerned about this bill. First, the UK Parliament expedited the bill—it was fast-tracked—yet it confers huge powers on UK Government ministers not only to intervene in a business and take operational control, but to make a business’s failure to comply a criminal offence. This is a serious piece of legislation.”
“Time is running out, and some of Scotland’s businesses are being worn to the bone by rising rates. High streets are also being hollowed out. Will the Scottish Government consider a pause on the collection of non-domestic rates while it sorts out the glitch in the software system? What is the definition of “rapid”?”
“Our commitment to the industry is clear through ministers’ ongoing involvement in the UK steel council, as well as our role in and input to the development and publication of the recent UK steel strategy. This has always been—and will continue to be— a Government that takes action.”
“Members will have seen in UK minister Chris McDonald’s recent written statement that the UK Government “is strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to bring British Steel into public ownership in the future, subject to the public interest being satisfied and taking into account all the relevant facts at that time.” I suggest that thi…”
“I hope that the member understands that we have sought to act in good faith by keeping the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee informed and by ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to consider, at the very least, the matter of legislative consent through the debate that we are having this afternoon.”
The complete record
Every one of 429 lines we hold for Rachael Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“There seem to be a lot of plans for plans and reviews of plans to create the plans, which will then need review. For me, it seems overcomplicated, and I was surprised to be accused of bureaucracy by the minister in the discussion on the last group of amendments. There is a huge mountain here. My amendments 138 and 139 are very simple. Amendment 138 would ensure that ministers consult those with practical experience in deer management when they prepare a review of the modifications to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. Amendment 139 would oblige ministers to consult those with an interest in deer management when they conduct the same review. It is about involving the people who know what they are talking about and have experience of doing it. It is simple really, which is why I will move the amendments.”
“Members will recall that we discussed the matter at stage 2 and heard from the minister about the pilot of the NatureScot app, in which data on deer management can be recorded. The app is a welcome step, but it is still under development. I thank the minister for meeting me to discuss that further following stage 2, and I note that he is still not minded to support amendment 59 today, but I appreciate that he has put on the record the Scottish Government’s commitment to getting the data right first. I hope that in future there will be deer data management recording systems with publicly accessible data sets in the interests of transparency. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 138 and other amendments in the group. Edward Mountain: I will keep my comments in this group to my amendments 138 and 139.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Beatrice Wishart to speak to amendment 59 and other amendments in the group. Beatrice Wishart: Amendment 59 seeks to establish a single deer management dashboard for the whole of Scotland as a means to record, collate and publish data relating to deer management in Scotland, set out in an open and transparent way. I thank Scottish Environment LINK for its engagement on the issue. The amendment would require that there is a means to bring together data on deer and deer management to be shared widely with land managers, and it would create a unified process of data management and presentation. It is important that data is the basis for informing and delivering sustainable deer management. In other similar European countries, such data is readily available to wildlife management practitioners.”
“Many deer managers are volunteers or recreational shooters who can and do contribute significantly to control efforts. As the minister mentioned, there are different approaches in the Highlands and the Lowlands to deer management. It has been raised with me that the requirement for equipment and other associated costs to be self-funded may be a barrier to engagement in lowland deer management, and also for young people who may wish to enter deer management. I am pleased that the minister has lodged amendment 20 to create a national deer management plan that seeks to address those concerns. My amendment 33 is intended to complement that amendment and to set out the kinds of information that I am keen to see included in that national plan, and I urge members to support it.”
“It is also important to recognise—and I know that the minister does—that there are more than just red deer in Scotland. Roe deer numbers, for example, are increasing in Scotland, including in urban and peri-urban areas. I welcome the contact from and engagement with one of the South Scotland deer managers, David Quarrell, as well as other local deer managers. David highlighted to me the local challenges of managing deer in urban and peri- urban areas. Different approaches, for example, in relation to habitats and species, need to be considered when creating a national deer management plan. I thank the minister for his comments and for meeting me to discuss my wishes for the amendment. Management solutions must be flexible and locally driven rather than part of a one-size-fits-all national plan.”
“My amendment 136 seeks to reduce that timescale to be within five years to ensure a speedier review and increased consultation with those who will be implementing the legislation. My amendment 137 would further amend the ministers’ reporting requirements in part 4. It would require the report to “include information on whether any provision of the 1996 Act as modified by this Part has not been used”. My final amendment in the group, amendment 140—which I am pleased that the minister supports—would require the report to be sent to the appropriate Scottish Parliament committee to increase scrutiny and accountability. Emma Harper: As I set out during stage 2 proceedings, I am keen that we recognise the wide and complex range of circumstances in which deer exist and are managed in Scotland.”
“Venison is a nutritious food source, which Scotland could have in abundance. It is also potentially a growing market. However, production activity has often been privately funded and, unfortunately, loss making. NatureScot has already begun several pilots to incentivise schemes but more needs to be done. My amendments 20C and 20D would respond to direct calls from those who deal with venison to have incentive schemes and for wider roll-out to be considered as part of the plan. Not only could that result in venison being more widely supplied but it could aid the Government in achieving its objectives regarding food and deer. I turn to amendments 136, 137 and 140. As currently drafted, the bill sets out that ministers will be required to review the effectiveness of parts of part 4 within 10 years of section 33A coming into force.”
“That said, I have lodged a few amendments that I thought would help the bill, and I am grateful for the minister’s comments in his opening speech. My amendments 20C and 20D would amend the minister’s amendment 20 to establish a deer management and venison plan. Such a plan is a good thing, but my amendments would require it to include, or for ministers to consider, “the introduction of a pilot for community larders and wider processing infrastructure for the purpose of increasing production capacity for venison.” I welcome the minister’s amendment to establish the plan, but I question whether more needs to be done to deal with the need for more processing support. That is a point that I have heard directly from people on the ground. I want deer managers to be able to maintain and expand their levels of venison production.”
“If policy is evolving in a slightly different direction to be more about working with the market for venison, we should at least put the population estimates into the plan, ensure that NatureScot has a properly funded role to do what the independent working group wanted it to do and ensure that important voices for environment and nature restoration are consulted. Those are the purposes of my amendment to the minister’s amendment and of my amendment 98. I move amendment 20A. Tim Eagle: The minister and I do not always agree on everything but we have had some good discussions about part 4 of the bill. He is right to talk about the value of venison to Scotland, rather than seeing it as something negative. I commend that, because that is exactly the direction that we want to go in.”
“Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention? Mark Ruskell: I will make a bit of progress. I welcome the minister’s support for amendment 20E, although he also said that it is not necessary to involve the environmental and nature restoration sectors. Why not? We will do that anyway. Nevertheless, I welcome his support for the amendment. The Parliament has a choice to make. Amendment 98 is clear; its provisions are what the Government signed up to and what was in the programme for government.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what impact the draft Scottish budget 2026-27 will have on social security in Scotland. (S6O-05418)”
“The First Minister: The Government will look at all the issues that come forward in relation to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and determine its position, but I simply repeat to Rachael Hamilton what I have said to Christine Grahame. Issues of cumulative impact are material issues to be considered in the planning process, and the steps that we are taking on further analysis in relation to the strategic spatial energy plan will be designed to address the points that Rachael Hamilton puts to me on behalf of her constituents, as we find the sensible balances between the protection of our natural environment and the ability to ensure that Scotland benefits from the abundant renewable energy that we will have to develop to provide energy security in the years to come. The Presiding Officer: Craig Hoy—briefly, please.”
“The First Minister says that he understands the concerns of Borders residents, but I do not think that he does. I attended the south of Scotland energy convention on Saturday, where the Scottish Conservatives showed their support for the Highlands and the north-east in calling for urgent action on the uncontrolled spread of energy infrastructure through a unified statement. Will the First Minister prove that he is supporting Borders communities by backing my amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill on a moratorium on new energy applications and a cumulative impact assessment on the natural environment?”
“Will you personally undertake to investigate this affront to a guest who had absolutely no political branding on his being? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am not aware of the circumstances of the case that you have raised, Ms Hamilton. For clarity, the policy is a Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body one, but I am concerned to hear what you have described. I will ensure that it is looked into and that a response is provided to you and to members, who I am sure will have an interest in that.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I believe that this is an important matter. I am sure that you agree that we want the Scottish Parliament to be a welcoming place for our guests and visitors. However, earlier today, a guest of mine was asked to remove his Doddie Weir lanyard and snood, neither of which included large campaign messages. The core policy explicitly states that “Banners, flags and political slogans are forbidden”, and that that includes clothing that displays large or overly political branding or campaign messages. You can see that the Doddie Weir lanyard that I am wearing has no political messaging. Presiding Officer, can you advise whether your office has changed the visitor policy without our knowing?”
“For employers and the industry across Scotland, the apprenticeship levy will continue to go to other things, not delivering more apprenticeships, which is what they expect that money to be going towards. I press amendment 87. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“That is one of the key fundamental difficulties. Miles Briggs: If you don’t ask, you don’t get, and the minister is not willing to ask. I understand that the minister might not expect to get the information from the UK Government that amendments 87 and 88 refer to and which I hope he would, but there is no excuse whatsoever for the Government not supporting amendment 90. I certainly hope that Liberal Democrat, Green and Labour members will unite behind it, because it will provide us with transparency from the Scottish ministers and we will not need to ask Westminster for anything. If members reject amendment 90, they obviously do not want to change the transparency around the funding.”
“I do not know why ministers have not wanted more transparency. I have raised the issue with the Deputy First Minister, who specifically answered a question by saying to me that the Scottish Government is not against more transparency and scrutiny surrounding the apprenticeship levy. It sounds as though its back- bench members are against transparency—and its ministers have not taken it forward, either. I will press my amendments. I hope that— Ben Macpherson: Will the member take an intervention? Miles Briggs: Yes. Ben Macpherson: With respect to what Mr Briggs is articulating, does he appreciate the point that I made in my remarks that the issue with amendments 87 and 88 is that there is little point in the Scottish ministers asking for something when there is no way of making UK ministers provide an answer?”
“Mr Hepburn often talks about this Parliament not being respected by Westminster, so I am not sure why the Scottish Government does not want to build stronger links with Westminster to find out where that money is being spent and, indeed, to provide the transparency that we are asking for. It can work both ways, and my amendments would provide the opportunity for that information to be made— Stephen Kerr: Will the member give way? Miles Briggs: Yes. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to the member for making the point about the need for Governments on this island to co-operate. On a broader issue, should we not be learning from the successes and the failures of apprenticeship systems in England and other parts of Europe? Why would we not? Miles Briggs: Absolutely—the bill could and should have included that.”
“It may raise its money that way, but the money that comes to the Scottish Government is provided not on the basis of how it is raised but on the basis of how much is spent by the UK Government. I freely concede that I do not have a line of sight on it now as I did after the introduction of the levy, but one of the challenges at that stage was that, despite the levy raising a certain amount of funds across the UK, apprenticeship numbers in England were going down. The real question was where the money was being spent there. Miles Briggs: Maybe Mr Hepburn’s involvement in the matter should also have generated some asking of questions about where that money is being spent in Scotland—that does not seem to have resulted in any more additional transparency.”
“I would have thought that ministers would be able to support amendment 90 because it gives them the opportunity to provide transparency to Parliament that we do not currently have. Because of that, it is down to members of the public and politicians in Opposition parties to submit freedom of information requests to find out what money HMRC has given the Scottish Government and where the Scottish Government has allocated that money. There is still £171 million that Scottish businesses have expected to be spent on the delivery of apprenticeships that has not been spent on that, and there is no transparency about where that money is. Jamie Hepburn: Does the member recognise that the lack of transparency extends from the way in which the UK Government expends its funding on apprenticeships?”
“For the reasons that have been set out today and previously, I ask Miles Briggs not to press his amendment 87 or move his amendments 88 and 90, and I ask Daniel Johnson not to move his amendment 91. If they do press those amendments, I encourage members to vote against them. The Presiding Officer: I call on Miles Briggs to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 87. Miles Briggs: I have not found the minister’s arguments convincing. He will have heard from Green, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative MSPs at committee that we want more transparency. The Scottish Parliament’s mace, which is in front of us, has the four words “Wisdom”, “Justice”, “Compassion” and “Integrity”, but maybe “Transparency” should also be there. The Government had an opportunity to work with us to lodge amendments, but somehow it has not done that work.”
“With regard to amendment 91, the appropriate mechanism for setting expectations around funding outcomes is already available through the terms and conditions of funding that the Scottish ministers can impose on the SFC. That is already possible under existing powers in the 2005 act. My amendment 10, in group 1, requires the Scottish ministers to create and maintain a national funding strategy, as we discussed earlier. The requirement to set out the outcomes that the Government seeks to achieve through funding tertiary education, skills and apprenticeships will be clearly addressed in that new strategy. I appreciate that there has been a lot of dialogue previously on the apprenticeship levy.”
“The Scottish Government does not receive a dedicated allocation of apprenticeship levy revenue, which means that it is not possible to directly link the money that is raised from the levy to any specific funding stream. I would envisage that that relates to some of the points that Jamie Hepburn made in his intervention about when the policy was first introduced by the UK Government and the lack of consultation that was undertaken, as he articulated it, with the Scottish Government. Miles Briggs’s amendment 90 and Daniel Johnson’s amendment 91 relate to funding for skills and training and how that is reported. They are unnecessary for a number of reasons. The SFC already prepares and publishes an annual report in which it outlines how it has allocated funding for specific purposes—that is already covered in the 2005 act.”
“I think that, in normal conversation, the minister would probably agree with that. Ben Macpherson: I appreciate those points being raised. The considerations about devolution and spending decisions being made on a devolved basis are important, but if we put those aside, the reasons why amendments 87 and 88 cannot be taken forward remain unchanged. In short, there is little point in placing a duty on the Scottish ministers to ask for something when there is no way of making UK ministers provide an answer. 18:00 Since the financial year 2020-21, Scotland has received a Barnett formula share of the UK Government Department for Education’s apprenticeship funding through the block grant.”
“As John Mason MSP and others pointed out at the time—Mr Mason rightly emphasised this again today—it is a fundamental principle of devolution that the Scottish Government can use its block grant funding from the UK Government in different ways to meet Scottish priorities. There would be no point in devolution if the Scottish Government mirrored the UK Government on every funding allocation. Stephen Kerr: I do not think that anyone is disputing the principle that John Mason raised and which the minister has reiterated. What we are seeking is clarity and transparency on how much is that part of the block grant and how much is being spent. Employers have raised that issue with the minister—I know that he has met them— and with us all. Miles Briggs’s amendments seek to address that issue so that we are completely transparent.”
“I can then consider, along with the relevant employers and public bodies in the region and, crucially, all other parliamentarians who represent the south of Scotland, whether there is collaborative work that we can do together that might have meaningful and positive impact. Funding from the apprenticeship levy was discussed at stage 2 in the context of amendments that were similar to the amendments in the group that we are discussing. At stage 2, Stephen Kerr expressed his concern that there is, in his view, a lack of transparency on use of the apprenticeship levy in Scotland and, in particular, how it is used to benefit employers. He argued that more funding should be allocated to apprenticeships linked to levy revenue.”
“I am very supportive of Miles Briggs’s amendments in the group, but I was hoping that the bill would include recognition of cross-border co-operation. The minister could be missing a trick with the amendments. It is important that businesses that employ apprentices who straddle both sides of the border are able to access funding through appropriate eligibility. Could the postcode anomaly be dealt with through the reporting mechanism? If not, will the minister implement significant policy changes through other means to change the eligibility criteria for those in postcodes such as TD12, in my constituency? Ben Macpherson: The member raises complex matters that require engagement with a number of different parties, so I urge her to follow up today’s bill proceedings with written correspondence.”
“I thank the FBU for its tireless campaigning and its 2023 report, “Firestorm”, which set out not just a critique but a credible vision for the future of our fire service.”
“Closing or downgrading the station would increase response times and put lives at risk. I pay special tribute to Alan Park at Balmossie for his tireless activism— raising awareness, supporting people to understand how the consultation worked and so much more. Thank you, Alan. Of course, similar concerns are being expressed elsewhere, such as in Lochgelly in Fife. I know that my colleague Mark Ruskell would be here if he could, representing the workers and constituents who worry about the proposed changes there. If we ignore these warnings, we will not be able to say that we did not know. Firefighters are being asked to do more with less in conditions that are increasingly intolerable. That is why the work of the Fire Brigades Union matters so profoundly.”
“Now, through the service delivery review, communities are being asked to contemplate the loss of stations and appliances that they know, in their bones, keep them safe. Let us be honest. This is not modernisation driven by vision; this is change driven by austerity. I will speak directly about the north-east region and, in particular, about Balmossie community fire and ambulance station. The message from the responses to the consultation on the service delivery review could not be clearer. Communities, workers, unions and local representatives all said the same thing—Balmossie must stay open, with no loss of appliances. This is not special pleading; it is common sense. Balmossie serves a growing population in an area where there are complex industrial risks, major transport routes and communities that already feel stretched.”
“I have outlined their work when family homes are on fire and in response to the climate emergency, as Rachael Hamilton highlighted, but, as is often forgotten, it is also about someone being on the phone, hoping for rescue, even when the service just cannot get to them in time. Firefighters are not just emergency responders; they are a national strategic asset. Yet, for more than a decade, it sometimes seems as though we have treated them as if they were expendable. Since 2013, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service resource budget has been cut by £58 million a year in real terms and 1,239 firefighter posts have been lost. Appliances sit uncrewed and response times have lengthened year on year.”
“I stand with Ms Chapman’s comments about our immense gratitude to those who risk their lives for us. Hawick fire station is at risk of having its full- time-equivalent service cut. I agree with Maggie Chapman about the incredible risks that we face from wildfires, climate change and so on. Does she agree that now is not the time for that cut to happen? Some 1,250 jobs have gone from the service. The Scottish Government must back it now, while we face those increased risks. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Ms Chapman. Maggie Chapman: I will come on to the service delivery review in a moment, but it is important that we recognise and acknowledge that the staff who work for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are there for us when it matters most.”
“On Saturday, I will meet more than 40 community councils at an energy convention in the Borders. They feel voiceless because monster pylons and other infrastructure are industrialising the countryside in the Borders without a clear plan from the Scottish National Party Government. An invitation to the convention was sent to your energy secretary, Gillian Martin, nearly a month ago, with no response having been received. Now we have learned that she has abdicated responsibility for consents to another SNP minister. Does that chaos not prove that your energy strategy is confused, incoherent and failing communities? First Minister, will you personally guarantee that those communities will receive a response from Gillian Martin by the end of the day? The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please.”
“I will leave it there, because I am well over my time. The decisions about flood prevention schemes are for local councillors, and it is only right they are made locally as much as possible. However, I have listened to the wider points that have been made. Meeting closed at 18:14. Correction Ivan McKee has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.”
“I have constituents in Methlick, Ellon and Inverurie who were taken out of their homes at 3 am on 7 January in 2016—today is the anniversary of that event—who still have lasting psychological scars from losing all their possessions and from waking up not knowing whether they were going to make it out of their house. We have to take those issues into account. We also have to look at the massive societal and economic costs. If we do not put flood prevention measures in place, the cost of dealing with a flood event will vastly outweigh the cost of those measures. That is why I encourage everyone to support the interventions that are being made and not to prevaricate. We should all help to get them built, because the funding is available. I hear what Rachael Hamilton says about Newcastleton, whose residents clearly want flood defences.”
“As the cabinet secretary will be aware, Newcastleton has not yet had flood defences built, but it is at huge risk. There are 140 houses in the village, which is rural and has an elderly population, but the risk puts people off living in the area. Once people are moved out, they will not move back, because they are scared to. Does Gillian Martin believe that the societal impact and the community aspect of flooding in rural areas need to be considered as well as the safety aspect? Gillian Martin: There are safety aspects, but, as Rachael Hamilton says, there is also a psychological impact on communities.”
“Rental valuations in the Borders are really worrying for local businesses. Does Murdo Fraser agree that the methodology for those valuations is completely wrong because it is based on the analysis of rents only? That data is so narrow that it is causing an increase of, on average, 150 per cent across the board, which is totally wrong. Murdo Fraser: I absolutely agree with the point that Rachael Hamilton makes. There are serious issues with the valuation methodology, which relies on a small and questionable rental data set.”
“I move amendment S6M-20269.1, to leave out from “to impose” to end and insert: “that no further action should be taken.” The Presiding Officer: I call John Mason. 17:59”
“Ash Regan: I confirm to the member that I did not send a complaint to the Ethical Standards Commissioner and that both the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and the Presiding Officer—I believe—read my letters as an attempt to seek guidance. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the member. I believe that, as members of this Parliament, we should not fear communicating freely with the public on important matters—matters that they think are important—about what is going on in here. The motion before members this evening is not just about sanctions for a social media post; it is about whether we are consistently upholding accountability and maintaining public trust in this institution.”
“Will the member give way? Ash Regan: If I will get the time back, Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer: I call Rachael Hamilton. Rachael Hamilton: Miss Regan’s letter to the Presiding Officer and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee expressed concerns about Maggie Chapman’s attack on the Supreme Court and requested advice, not action. With regard to what Mr Whitfield said, I would be interested to know the answer to this question. Can Miss Regan say whether there was no intent to complain but an intent to seek advice, which would mean that the code of conduct was not broken in that instance?”
“I hope that today’s debate will spark ideas and inspire collaborative solutions that can support both the operators who keep facilities running and, critically, the users who depend on them. 16:41”
“That is why we commissioned sportscotland to undertake a comprehensive review of the condition and long-term investment needs of Scotland’s sporting infrastructure. The report will be published shortly and will sit alongside the 2023 swimming pool review, providing vital information to help us make informed decisions collectively. The 2023 review highlighted the ageing pool estate and the significant energy improvements that will be required if we are to ensure that facilities remain sustainable. The review’s findings underscore the need for a collaborative approach that brings together Government, local authorities, other partners and communities to secure the future of our sporting infrastructure.”
“As such, the vast majority of funding is provided by means of a block grant. As I set out to Mr Carlaw, the 2025-26 budget recognises the importance of local government and provides local authorities with a record funding package of more than £15.1 billion in 2025-26, which is a real-terms increase of 5.5 per cent. The Government has made a significant commitment to Scotland’s sporting future. Since April 2007, sportscotland has invested more than £211 million to help sports clubs, community groups, local authorities, sports governing bodies and other organisations in delivering new and upgraded sporting facilities across the country. That investment has helped to create spaces where people can come together, be active and thrive. However, we understand that significant challenges remain.”
“Their collective efforts deserve recognition, especially given the setbacks during the pandemic that affected water safety attainment and swimming instruction. We also acknowledge the challenges faced by operators of sports and leisure facilities, first during the pandemic and then through the energy crisis, which created significant financial pressures. Rising operational, energy, building and transport costs have placed real strain on resources, making it harder to heat pools and buildings and maintain infrastructure. Although the funding of local sports and leisure facilities, including pools, is the responsibility of local authorities, we recognise the importance of support. Our policy on local authority spending is to allow authorities the financial freedom to operate independently.”
“The pilots demonstrated that the school swimming framework is the most effective model for enabling children to learn to swim, particularly in addressing poverty-related barriers to access. Scottish Swimming and Scottish Water recently marked 10 years of the learn to swim programme, which is a joint initiative delivered by 38 local aquatic partners. Progress has been remarkable: participation has grown from 53,000 people in 2017 to more than 83,000 in 2024. Even more encouraging is the increase in participation by children from Scotland’s more deprived communities, which has grown from 10 per cent in 2018 to 16 per cent today. That is a real and measurable impact, widening access and delivering social value. The success of the programme is a testament to the dedication of Scottish Swimming, Scottish Water and local partners.”
“Activities such as aquatic exercise classes for older adults not only improve balance and strength but foster social connections, which often extend past the pool to the cafe and the wider community. For children and young people, swimming pools offer more than just exercise. They offer the chance to learn a life-saving skill, as Mr Carlaw and Mr Sweeney have set out. Pools build confidence and a sense of achievement. We believe that every child should have the opportunity to learn to swim. It can save lives and lead to a lifetime of enjoyment through swimming, as Mr Scott highlighted in his evidence. However, we know that there are significant inequalities in access to swimming lessons, which is why we funded swimming pilots in partnership with sportscotland and Scottish Swimming.”
“The cabinet secretary has said that swimming saves health and social care money and promotes wellbeing. However, Jedburgh and Selkirk pools are being shut and those communities are being called on. Will the cabinet secretary look at the percentage of the Barnett consequentials of the £63 million that is being provided in England to support pools and bring that to Scotland? Neil Gray: We have passed over significant Barnett consequentials, as I set out in my intervention on Mr Carlaw, in an increase to local government funding, which I will come to in more detail. Those particular decisions need to be taken locally; I am more than happy to consider any approaches on individual cases, but they are for local decision makers to take forward. Public leisure facilities play a crucial role in tackling loneliness.”
“On small business Saturday—and, indeed, all year round—we should celebrate, and encourage support for, small businesses, including those in my area of the Borders—Border Eco Systems in Jedburgh, Thomas Sherriff & Co machinery and Border Padel Company, which I recently visited, are all fantastic examples. They need our help at this critical time more than ever, as it is an incredibly challenging time to be a small business. Owners are facing relentless pressure from rising bills and from inflation and energy prices, and on- going economic uncertainty is at the forefront of their minds. Many feel that, just when they start to recover from one challenge, another is placed in their way.”
“I begin by declaring an interest as a business owner. That declaration of interests also applies to the interventions that I made earlier on Fergus Ewing in relation to rates revaluation. Today, I pay tribute to all those enterprises and entrepreneurs across Scotland who work hard all year round. Those are the people who take risks, invest their savings and work long hours, and who keep going even when the economic environment is stacked against them. Their efforts provide the tax revenue that we need to fund public services; their success supports our national health service, schools and local councils and the services on which communities depend; and their hard work provides the good-quality paid jobs that we all need.”