Annie Wells
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“If we are serious about supporting our town centres and our high streets, restoring pride in our communities and ensuring that no one is left behind, access to basic banking services must be part of the conversation. There also needs to be a broader rethink of how we protect access to cash.”
“There is a real sense of identity, pride and community spirit, and local services such as banks are part of that fabric. When they disappear, something much bigger is lost.”
“I, too, thank Clare Haughey for bringing this important debate the chamber. Decisions to close Bank of Scotland branches, including the one in Rutherglen, have a profound impact on communities, as Ms Haughey explained very well.”
“I recognise the commercial realities that banks face, but we cannot ignore the social consequences of these decisions. Clare Haughey: I agree with all that Annie Wells has said about the impact on the community.”
“It also risks isolating those who are already vulnerable and sending a message that towns such as Rutherglen and places such as Springburn can be left behind. That cannot be acceptable. I urge Lloyds Banking Group to reconsider its decision before the closure in the summer.”
“Amendment 85 agreed to. The Presiding Officer: We have had detailed consideration of amendments, and members have noted the manner and spirit in which our proceedings have been conducted. That ends our consideration of stage 3 amendments.”
The complete record
Every one of 158 lines we hold for Annie Wells, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“I will respond to some of the points that were made about specific provisions. On new designations, I agree with Daniel Johnson that this debate is also about the kind of Parliament that we want to have. It would not have been appropriate to put more detail on the process for designation in the bill, as that would be a matter for Parliament’s standing orders, but we must say that the role of this Parliament is to hold the Scottish Government to account. Given that the Scottish Government has failed for more than two decades to keep freedom of information where it should be, it is appropriate that more power is given to the Parliament and its committees. The idea of creating a freedom of information officer role came from freedom of information officers.”
“I have listened carefully to members’ speeches, and there seems to be a consensus that the public’s right to information is important, and that there must be accountability on public service delivery and transparency on the use of public money. However, we must recognise that our current freedom of information regime has been in place for more than two decades and that the public, campaigners, organisations and Government have all experienced how it works, where it works well and what needs to change. That is why the current Information Commissioner and his predecessors support the bill. That is why the bill enjoys the support of so many organisations, and it is why so much of the evidence that was submitted, including from trade unions, care home relative campaigners and the third sector, supported the bill.”
“15:30 Katy Clark: This Parliament was founded on the principles of accountability, openness and transparency, and the bill gives us the opportunity to build on those principles today. I have outlined the process that led to the provisions that are in the bill that we are considering, which I believe is the correct starting point. I thank the committee for the scrutiny that it undertook in preparing its stage 1 report, all the stakeholders who engaged with the process, Carole Ewart from the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland and those in my office for their work on the bill. I also thank the Scottish Information Commissioner, his team and all the former information commissioners who engaged with the process. The only issue that is before us today is whether we agree with the general principles of the bill at stage 1.”
“Throughout this session of Parliament, the Scottish Government has sought to progress those wider values through its open government agenda. As someone who started the session as a minister, took 14 months out and then returned to Government, I can attest to the progress that has been made on that. In the light of the committee’s recommendation, the Scottish Government will still be opposing the bill today. However, that does not detract from our commitment to robust FOI law in Scotland or from our openness to engagement on a cross-party basis on its further development. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Katy Clark, the member in charge of the bill, to wind up the debate.”
“We should come together to acknowledge that there is an opportunity in the next session of Parliament—whether the process is led by the Government or, as Mr Whitfield has innovatively suggested, a committee of the whole Parliament— to point the way forward. We can recognise the shortcomings of the bill as well as its positives; there is some good stuff in the bill, as the Government acknowledged in its response to the committee. I am very conscious of time. Freedom of information is only one part of how we can build a more participative democracy in Scotland. The values of openness and participation certainly require the wide provision of official information. Those values also entail Government and public services being approachable, responsive and accountable to the people they serve.”
“One member spoke about the public looking in on the Parliament. The action that some of the parties seek to take would raise an expectation that absolutely cannot be fulfilled. I contend that it is more sensible, pragmatic and practical for all of us—as we have done today, because there is more that unites us than divides us on this issue— to come forward and say, “We recognise that there is insufficient time to use this vehicle, which the committee has agreed is not the appropriate vehicle.” Jamie Greene: Will the minister take an intervention? Sue Webber: Will the minister give way? Graeme Dey: I offer my genuine apologies, but I have very little time.”
“They now seem to want to agree to the bill at stage 1, but they acknowledge that there is insufficient time for the bill to be developed in the way that is necessary. To be clear, if we agree to the bill at stage 1, it will go forward to the next parliamentary stage. Daniel Johnson: I note that committee members are encouraged to leave their party hats at the door. That point notwithstanding, we are, as always, being asked to consider the general principles of the bill. If the Parliament subsequently runs out of time, that is another matter. Would it not send an odd signal to vote against the bill while suggesting that our successors in the next session should take up the issue? I find that strange. Graeme Dey: I recognise Daniel Johnson’s point. However, we are five weeks out from the conclusion of the parliamentary session.”
“In its recommendations, the committee made it clear that the bill’s general principles should not be supported at stage 1 because it did not “consider this Bill to be the most effective vehicle to deliver the necessary change” that is desired. It also recommended that the general principles should not be supported due to the lack of time that is available for the necessary policy development to be completed. The Government has followed the committee’s recommendation not to support the bill at stage 1 based on its report. However, Sue Webber has taken the unusual step of lodging a reasoned amendment to point out the lack of time. Therefore, I am slightly confused as to what the Conservative and Labour parties—which are both represented on the committee—want to do.”
“It is easy to say that we should find the time, but finding it is a completely different matter. Are members suggesting that we should scrap other business to facilitate the bill and deal with it as a committee of the whole Parliament? What business should we scrap? Are members suggesting that the Parliament should somehow order the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to drop everything else that it is currently doing? I suspect that the convener might have something to say about that. We have certainly heard a change of position from two parties that are represented on the committee.”
“15:25 Graeme Dey: I thank all members who have contributed to the debate this afternoon, whether I have entirely or partially agreed or disagreed with them. Richard Leonard made a typically passionate and thoughtful speech. There is no doubt that we will miss Richard in the next parliamentary session—or, rather, the Parliament will miss him; like him, I will not be here. However, the answer to his question about why we could not progress the bill to a conclusion in this session was provided a few moments earlier by the convener, who talked about the need for further consultation on key aspects of the proposals, the speculative nature of the financial memorandum and concerns about the creation of an offence of the deliberate destruction of information. There is simply not the time to properly work on the bill.”
“It allows the Parliament to acknowledge the need for reform while being honest about the limitations of the bill. If it is agreed to, it will strengthen the message that the work must not end here. Freedom of information underpins trust in public life. That trust is too important to be dealt with by creating uncertainty or delay. This debate should send a strong signal that change is needed, that the Parliament is ready to engage and that, in the next parliamentary session, the Government must deliver FOI legislation that truly works in practice. To answer Jamie Greene’s question, we will vote for the general principles of the bill at stage 1, regardless of whether my colleague Sue Webber’s amendment is agreed to, because the conversation must continue. Once again, I thank Katy Clark for her work.”
“The amendment provides a clearer framework for how reform should be approached and sends a strong signal that the responsibility for introducing comprehensive, workable legislation ultimately rests with the Scottish Government. Parliament is under real pressure in this debate. There is increasing public frustration about access to information and growing criticism of institutions that appear closed or opaque. In that context, it would be easy to present this debate as involving a binary choice between being in favour of transparency and being against it, but that framing is misleading. Supporting transparency means getting the law right. It means ensuring that reform is deliverable, properly resourced and capable of being implemented consistently across the public sector. That is why Sue Webber’s amendment matters so much.”
“It was unconvinced that replacing publication schemes with a broad, proactive publication duty would achieve the cultural shift that is needed. The committee also raised serious concerns about whether the proposed designation powers and enforcement mechanisms were sufficiently developed or practical. Those are not minor technical points. They go to the heart of whether the bill would improve access to information or would simply create new uncertainty for public bodies and frustration for the public. That is why the amendment in my colleague Sue Webber’s name is so important. It recognises the legitimate desire for reform, while making it clear that the bill in its current form cannot be the final answer.”
“That is why I begin by recognising the work that Katy Clark has done in introducing the bill. She has forced Parliament to confront questions that have been left unanswered for far too long. That in itself is a valuable contribution that deserves acknowledgement, but recognising efforts does not remove our responsibility to scrutinise outcomes. The evidence that was presented to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee was clear on one central point. Although reform is needed, the bill does not yet provide a workable or reliable route to delivering it. The committee was not persuaded that legislating for a general presumption in favour of disclosure would materially change behaviour.”
“When people submit a freedom of information request, they are not making a political statement. They are usually asking something very ordinary, such as, “Who took this decision?”, “Why was this contract awarded?” or “How was this money spent?” Our responsibility in this Parliament is to ensure that the law behind such requests works, not just in theory but in practice. It is not disputed that Scotland’s FOI framework needs to keep pace with how public services now operate. The way in which information is created, stored and shared has changed dramatically since 2002. Public services are delivered through increasingly complex arrangements, which often involve arm’s-length bodies, contractors and hybrid organisations. The legislation has not kept pace.”
“I believe that we need to take pride in our communities, and we see that abundantly in Rutherglen, Burnside and Cambuslang. It was a powerful reminder that Rutherglen’s future is being shaped by young people who care deeply about where they live. As we have heard, Rutherglen has also produced an extraordinary amount of talent over the years, across sport, culture, business and public life. That is no accident. The town has strong links to figures such as Stan Laurel, who is one half of the most iconic comic double act in history: Laurel and Hardy. I used to play one and my dad the other. Members can decide which one each of us played.”
“Today, as Ms Haughey said, Rutherglen continues to be shaped by independent businesses and local employers who have chosen to invest there. Long-standing firms remain a familiar presence, while small cafes, family-run shops and service businesses along Main Street and the surrounding area continue to provide not only jobs but connection and community. Those businesses are run by people who care deeply about the town and its future. I recently had the opportunity to visit Rutherglen high school to see its eco project, which is led by pupils who are passionate about sustainability and improving their local environment. What impressed me most were not only the ambition of the project but the pride of the young people who took part in contributing positively to their community.”
“Many of my friends lived in Rutherglen and I often find myself recalling with affection times spent in and around the town in places and on streets that I knew well. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, I would head to the video shop on Main Street with friends and then walk through Overtoun park. There was a great sense of community and character in the town. When I was married almost 34 years ago, I had my wedding reception at the nearby Kings Park hotel, because we knew that place well and it represented both Glasgow and Rutherglen, where we were from. More recently, I have enjoyed simply taking walks around the area and reflecting on how the town has evolved. Familiar streets have changed, but the character and warmth of the community have remained.”
“I congratulate Clare Haughey on bringing this debate to the chamber. I really enjoyed her speech about the history of Rutherglen. It is a privilege to speak in this debate about the 900 years of Rutherglen—my dad would call it Ruglen—which is one of Scotland’s oldest royal burghs and a town with a proud and distinct identity. Rutherglen is not a place to talk about in the abstract; it is a place that people know well and remember, and it is a place that I knew well when I was growing up. Over the years, I have spent a great deal of time in the town, visiting schools, meeting community groups and speaking with local traders, and in my youth I spent time in some of the pubs on and off Main Street. I have seen at first hand how Rutherglen has changed, adapted and endured. I have many fond personal memories that are rooted in the area.”
“What steps will be taken to ensure that no survivor of domestic abuse is ever again placed at risk due to such a safeguarding failure?”
“Will the First Minister address the case of my constituent, a mother of four and a survivor of domestic abuse, whose confidential refuge address was disclosed to her abuser due to an admitted failure by the courts during the imposition of a non-harassment order? As a direct consequence of the disclosure, my constituent and her children are required to leave their women’s aid accommodation under safeguarding protocols, despite having done nothing wrong and the court formally acknowledging fault. Given that that harm arose solely due to an error by the justice system, what action will the Scottish Government take to ensure that my constituent and her children are provided with immediate, safe and suitable housing?”
“That is what our amendment calls for, and it is what the victims want. Kimberly Darroch, the mother of 10-year-old Milly Main, who died after contracting an infection while being treated for leukaemia in the hospital, said: “I do believe that Nicola Sturgeon knows something. My message to her is to come forward and be honest.” I agree with Milly Main’s mother, and that is why I urge every MSP to support our amendment. This Parliament owes them nothing less. 16:13”
“Communications relating to water contamination, ventilation failures, the opening of the hospital and the handling of infections must be released in full. No organisation should be above scrutiny, no reputation should come before patient safety and no family should have to fight for years to be believed. The families are not seeking scapegoats—they want recognition, change and assurance that this will never happen again. The greatest injustice of all would be to allow such a failure to be repeated. That is why, given her role as the then health secretary and later as the then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon should come forward and make a personal statement to the Parliament setting out what she knew, what she was advised of and what actions were taken under her leadership.”
“The father of victim Molly Cuddihy said that the health board was “warned for years” about those issues. That is not a system learning from mistakes; it is a system protecting itself. That is why the motion matters. We now know that the hospital opened before it was ready. We know that microbial risks were identified, yet patients were admitted regardless. The First Minister has acknowledged that there were cultural problems at the health board and that families appear to have been lied to. That is significant, but acknowledgement is not accountability. The health secretary has done nothing to hold those same health bosses accountable, and he has ignored our call to put the board into special measures. That is why the call for full disclosure and the preservation of all relevant communications is essential, not optional.”
“This flagship Government project was a centrepiece of the SNP’s 2015 general election campaign. Frankly, no one believes that ministers had zero role in overseeing it or in making decisions. If that was the case, that would be gross negligence. Those who were responsible, whether in the Government or the health board, must be held to account. However, this is not only about the actions of ministers; it is about culture. We have heard repeated evidence of a defensive and closed management culture, of clinicians being discouraged from putting concerns in writing, of senior experts being dismissed and of parents being reassured while wards were quietly closed around them. Families have described being misled and dismissed while children became seriously ill.”
“At that time, Nicola Sturgeon was First Minister, John Swinney was Deputy First Minister and Shona Robison was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport. For years, the SNP denied the problem and opposed a public inquiry into the hospital, before eventually U- turning. It ignored safety concerns and dismissed families who were grieving. Warnings were minimised and whistleblowers were called troublemakers rather than listened to. Eighty-four child cancer patients were infected and at least two died. Police Scotland is now investigating multiple deaths that are linked to the QEUH campus. Those families deserve answers, not deflection, denial or silence. The SNP must be honest about who put pressure on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to open the hospital before it was safe to do so, what ministers knew and when they knew it.”
“Although legal and political consequences will continue to unfold, our responsibility in the chamber is clear—to ensure transparency, accountability and justice for those who were failed. For years, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde insisted that there was no causal link between the hospital environment and patient infections. That position has now been abandoned. In its closing submissions, the board accepted that it is more likely than not that some bloodstream infections were connected to the hospital environment— particularly the water system; that infection rates fell only after remedial work was carried out in 2018; and that whistleblowers were not adequately listened to. Those are not minor concessions; they fundamentally alter the narrative. The hospital opened to patients just 10 days before a general election.”
“Scotland is now confronting what many rightly regard to be one of the most serious healthcare failures in recent memory. After years of denial, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has now accepted that contaminated water systems at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital were, on the balance of probabilities, linked to serious infections in child cancer patients and to deaths. That admission did not come quickly, voluntarily or without a cost. For years, families fought to have their experiences recognised. They did not ask for headlines or politics; they asked for honesty. Instead, they encountered delay, deflection and disbelief, while officials explored every possible explanation, except the one that was staring them in the face. Following closing submissions to the Scottish hospitals inquiry, the position has shifted dramatically.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve Glasgow’s economic performance, in light of reports that the city continues to lag behind the rest of Scotland. (S6O-05360)”
“That is not about convenience—it is about protecting brain health, reducing lifelong harm and recognising the limits of dietary treatment. PKU may be rare, but its impact is lifelong. Families are doing everything that is asked of them, and it is time for the system to meet them with the same level of commitment. Scotland can do better for people who are living with PKU, and we must. 17:25”
“That raises a fundamental issue: a medicine that exists but cannot be accessed is not delivering any benefit. Availability on paper is not the same as access in practice. I ask the Scottish Government for a clear commitment. Will it commit to identifying and removing the barriers that are preventing people with PKU from accessing BH4 in Scotland? Will it commit to supporting those individuals now, rather than leaving them reliant on diet alone, despite clear evidence that diet is not always enough? Looking ahead, Scotland must also be ready to evaluate and adopt future treatments, such as sepiapterin, without unnecessary delay, so that people living with PKU are not once again left waiting for years to get access.”
“It affects education, employment, mental wellbeing and social life and it requires constant planning and monitoring, with very little flexibility. That is why the medicine sapropterin, also known as BH4, which was approved for NHS use in Scotland in 2022, is so important. For some people with PKU, BH4 can significantly reduce phenylalanine levels and allow for a less restrictive diet. It does not remove all dietary requirements and limits, but it can reduce daily pressure and improve quality of life. For those who can access it, it is genuinely life changing. However, despite the treatment being approved and available, many adults in Scotland are unable to access it—not because it would not work for them, but because the pathway that is required to start it, including response testing, is not consistently available.”
“Even when that diet is followed extremely well, there is evidence of on-going effects on brain health. We must consider the impact on those who struggle to maintain such a strict regime over many years. The reality is that that dietary treatment places a huge burden on individuals and families. On hearing that I would be speaking in the debate, my friend and former colleague Alison Harris got in touch with me, as her family has experienced PKU at first hand. Her cousin John and his late wife AnneMarie had three children, all living with PKU. Throughout their entire lives, they have had to be extremely careful, and AnneMarie and John have worked tirelessly to ensure that they are on the correct diet. That experience reflects what many families across Scotland face—quietly, every day.”
“I thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing this very important topic to the chamber. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to speak about phenylketonuria, known as PKU, which is a rare inherited metabolic condition, and the serious issues that face people in Scotland who are living with it. PKU affects how the body breaks down phenylalanine, which is a natural part of protein. When levels build up in the blood, they cause damage to the brain; that damage is permanent and cannot be reversed. In Scotland, babies are diagnosed early through newborn screening, and that early diagnosis is vital. However, diagnosis is only the beginning—living with PKU is lifelong and demanding. For decades, the main treatment has been a highly restrictive, low-protein diet. As we heard, protein intake must be tightly controlled every day, for life.”
“Labour’s motion rightly highlights the scale of the crisis, but we need more than warm words. We need the Government to finally admit that its approach has failed and that the people of Scotland cannot wait any longer for meaningful action. I say to the ministers: stop wasting money; stop defending the indefensible; start funding local care properly; start valuing care workers as the essential professionals they are; and start treating Glasgow’s vulnerable people with the dignity and urgency that they deserve. Glasgow’s social care crisis is not abstract—it is real, it is immediate and it is harming people right now. The Government must finally get serious about putting it right. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jamie Hepburn, who will be the final speaker in the open debate. 15:38”
“Our city has one of the highest levels of health inequality in the whole of the UK. We have an ageing population and a growing number of people who are living with long-term conditions. Those pressures are not going away, but the support to address them has gone away. If the Government was serious about improving social care, it would start by listening, not to consultants or central Government committees, but to the workers on the ground: the carers, the nurses, the home support teams and the charities and volunteers who keep Glasgow going every single day. It would listen to the families who tell us that they are at breaking point. They are tired of being passed from pillar to post and tired of hearing promises while their loved ones have to wait for months for help that should be available within days.”
“In Glasgow, we are seeing the consequences every single week. Older people are waiting months for basic care assessments, and families are begging for care-at-home packages that simply do not exist. Carers have told me that they are leaving the profession because they cannot cope with the pressure, the hours or the pay. Charities have told me that they are using reserves just to stay open, and 67 per cent of not-for-profit providers have said that they will not survive for more than four years without change. We are not talking about a functioning social care system. We are talking about a system that is held together by overstretched staff and unpaid carers, the majority of whom are women, who are being pushed well beyond breaking point. Glasgow deserves better than that.”
“That is not a sustainable workforce model—it is a crisis response that is becoming the norm. Charities know that, too. Two hundred and forty organisations, including Age Scotland and Alzheimer Scotland, have already warned the First Minister that the sector has been “pushed to breaking point”. Those words were not used lightly. However, instead of fixing those problems, the SNP Government ploughed ahead with its disastrous national care service and spent £30 million on a plan that everyone told it would not work, before being forced into a humiliating climbdown. That £30 million could have delivered 1 million hours of care or paid for 1,200 care workers. Instead, it was just squandered. While ministers wasted years on an unworkable centralisation project, the real issues were left to spiral.”
“Across Scotland, social care is in crisis, and nowhere is that clearer than in my home city of Glasgow. Day in and day out, I hear from families, unpaid carers, care workers and members of community organisations who are simply exhausted. They are doing everything that they can, but they are being failed by a system that is underfunded, overstretched and increasingly unsafe. Glasgow’s social care system is not just creaking—it is breaking. Local authorities are struggling with unprecedented pressures. The Accounts Commission has already warned that councils face a £650 million black hole, which is being driven in large part by rising social care costs. In the past five years, Glasgow City Council alone has spent almost £100 million on overtime and agency staff simply to keep services afloat.”
“I say that not only from my perspective standing here but because of the engagement that I had with delegates who came from around the world to visit Glasgow as part of the Commonwealth Sport general assembly and were blown away by the facilities, the integration and the work that is being done across Glasgow to prepare for the games. Donald Rukare and the other international delegates and partners from Commonwealth federations were more than pleased with the facilities on offer and were delighted to see Glasgow stepping in to save the games.”
“Every Glaswegian will, of course, be looking forward to welcoming athletes, supporters and visitors from across the world to Glasgow next year, but some Glaswegians will also feel ashamed of and disappointed by the sights that some of those visitors will see. There are rats, needles and overflowing bins on our streets, and I have heard from Glasgow health and social care partnership that rough sleeping is likely to increase during the games, due to a shortage of accommodation. I thank all those who are working hard on the games and on welcoming the volunteers, athletes and visitors to the city, but what can the Scottish Government do to ensure that Glasgow is in a fit state to welcome the world? Neil Gray: I am confident that Glasgow City Council and Glasgow will be in shape to welcome the world.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that over 1,200 women have been treated for female genital mutilation in Glasgow in the past five years. (S6T-02780)”
“We believe that enshrining rights must be done in a way that is deliverable, inclusive and aligned with existing frameworks in order to avoid unintended harm. In her comments over the weekend, Professor Matheson raised some serious concerns about the right to recovery bill, too. She explicitly stated that it was “sensibly voted down” by the”
“Professor Matheson is right that the national mission “was more about controlling the narrative than addressing drug deaths”, which are still the highest in Europe. We were willing to give the Thistle a chance, but it has led to nothing but misery for Calton residents. At the same time, drug deaths increased by 3 per cent in the first six months after it opened. Why could the minister not extend the same chance to the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill and work with us to improve it instead of voting it down at the first chance and continuing with the Government’s failed policies? Maree Todd: It is clear that the Government and the Parliament had some significant concerns about the bill’s overly medicalised approach. It did not reflect the evidence-based, person-centred, trauma-informed model that we are committed to.”
“I also call on the UK Government to pause this closure, to properly consult local representatives, service users and employers and to commit to a full equality and accessibility impact assessment before any final decision is made. Let us listen to the people of Cambuslang, and let us make decisions with communities, not for them. Government at every level should be about helping people move forward and not about putting more barriers in their way. Once again, I thank my colleague Clare Haughey for bringing this debate to the chamber. 17:48”
“It is also deeply ironic that a Government that claims to promote fairness and opportunity is instead pulling up the ladder for those who need the help most. Although I acknowledge the need for modernisation, digital tools and online services can never fully replace the face-to-face support that many people need and want. Not everyone has reliable internet access, and not everyone has the competence to navigate the system alone. Cambuslang has already lost too many local services in recent years. We cannot continue to strip away the very foundations of community support, and then act surprised when people feel abandoned. I would like to make clear that this is not about party politics. It is, as I said in the debate earlier today, about people. It is about ensuring that those looking for work are supported locally and are not left behind.”
“By closing this jobcentre, we are asking vulnerable people—people with disabilities, mobility issues or limited means—to travel significantly further, often for more than an hour, as we have heard from Ms Haughey, to reach the next nearest centre in Rutherglen. That is not accessibility; it is exclusion. As we have heard, the decision was taken without any meaningful consultation with local residents, councillors or community groups, and that lack of transparency is unacceptable. Local voices matter. The people of Cambuslang deserve better than to have decisions made about them, without them. We have heard all too often that such closures are about efficiency, but there is nothing efficient about forcing people to spend more time and money to access basic support, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis.”
“I thank Clare Haughey for once again bringing this matter to the chamber. She should not have had to do so; it should have been dealt with back in 2017, as she said. I express my concern at the decision to close Cambuslang jobcentre in January 2026, which is a decision made by the DWP under the Labour Government at Westminster. The closure is more than just an administrative change; it will have real consequences for people in Cambuslang—people who are trying to find work, support their families and rebuild their lives. For many in the community, the jobcentre is not simply a building; it is a vital point of access for advice, training, opportunities and human connection at what can often be one of the most difficult points in someone’s life.”
“It needs a Government that is brave enough to say that people deserve more than survival—they deserve to live. I urge everyone in the chamber to listen to the message from Faces and Voices of Recovery UK: “You keep talking, we keep dying.” Let us do the right thing by taking action now and backing this bill. 15:30”
“In yesterday’s debate, the cabinet secretary Màiri McAllan said on the subject of illegal migration: “we are talking about people ... with hopes, people with aspirations, people who have suffered and human beings who should be treated with dignity and respect.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2025; c 26.] I agree with her, but I must ask the Scottish National Party Government why it cannot extend the same compassion, respect and human dignity to those suffering from addiction. If we are honest, this consumption facility is not a pathway to hope; it is a deferral of tragedy. It is a waiting room for inevitability, where human beings are allowed to remain trapped in addiction for years without any real chance of recovery. Scotland does not need more managed misery; it needs meaningful recovery.”