Brian Whittle
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“As Jamie Halcro Johnston said, roads, rail networks and ferries—we keep coming back to ferries—are key to keeping those communities where they are and stopping migration away from them. The chamber will welcome the fact that this— eventually—is my last speech in this parliamentary session.”
“Speaking as somebody who got his first mobile phone—a brick of a thing—at the age of 32, I find that quite astonishing. It is important that pupils have the opportunity to put their phones down in school, but also important is what happens outside school.”
“As always, I want to introduce a slightly different approach to the subject and so I will talk about how we should develop health policy. We must start from the position that services should be available to our communities no matter where they are, whether they are urban, rural or on islands.”
“It is interesting that the girls attitudes survey carried out by Girlguiding UK in 2025 found that girls are restricting their online activity in order to protect themselves, with more than a third of respondents reporting that they avoid using certain apps and platforms in order to protect themselves.”
“It is a pleasure to follow Beatrice Wishart, who, as we all know, has been a real champion for her communities in the time that she has spent here.”
“That was an interesting question from Mr Harvie, as the Scottish Greens have spent the majority of this session of Parliament demonising our farmers and food producers.”
The complete record
Every one of 750 lines we hold for Brian Whittle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 15.
“In short, the amendments seek to ensure that community-based owners of land are held to the same standard as others in their management of the land and manage the risk to that management in the event of instability within the organisation, both of which I believe are entirely reasonable measures to take. I move amendment 252. Rhoda Grant: I do not have amendments in this group, but I want to make a few comments. The amendments seek to hold community bodies to a higher standard than private landowners. If the policy intent of the amendments is to ensure continuity of land management plans so that national policy objectives for nature and net zero are met, the amendments would apply to any landowner or lot under these provisions, but they do not.”
“18:00 Most members in the chamber will know of community organisations with good intentions that have failed following the departure of key members due to a lack of succession planning or other management failings. I believe that it is important that we take steps in the bill to address that risk. If, as some members have asserted, accountability is the key element of the bill, it is only right that every owner of land above the set threshold is required to meet the same standard of accountability. Although I am aware that there are people who believe that community ownership automatically bestows some greater moral authority that allows such owners a greater level of trust, I do not think that that is sound basis for legislation—hence my amendments.”
“The nature of community bodies means that membership and leadership of an organisation can change frequently. Members come and go, priorities of communities change and so on. In that situation, it is important that the group considers the implications of that for how its landholding is managed and ensures some level of continuity. I previously raised concern about how we ensure that community groups have the tools and structures in place to be effective long-term owners of land. Unfortunately, those concerns were dismissed at the time. I am a supporter of the principle of communities owning land, but I am acutely aware that land management is a long- term, even multigenerational, task.”
“It seems entirely reasonable to me that we should expect any large landowner, regardless of their structure, to be held to the same standard on land management. Amendment 259 would ensure that, should a landholding with a land management plan that is already in place be purchased by a community group, the community group inherits that land management plan and should continue to deliver it until its own plan is developed. Recognising that community bodies may require some time to develop practical land management plans, amendment 366 would provide a five-year grace period from royal assent before land management plans are required for community-based landholdings. In addition, I am proposing amendment 252, which is intended to address the issue of succession planning in community bodies.”
“Some time ago, during Mercedes Villalba’s members’ business debate on her proposal for land reform, I argued that, if we are serious about land reform that makes a positive difference, we should be more concerned with how the land is managed than with who owns the land and how much they own. My position on that has not changed. That brings me to my amendments in the group, three of which are intended to address an apparent disparity in the use of land management plans between community-based organisations and other forms of landowner, whereby community organisations are not held to the same standard. Amendment 277 would require community bodies to produce land management plans in the same way as any other landowner whose holding meets the 50-hectare lotting threshold.”
“In speaking to the amendments, I return to the question that I asked when the initial consultation on the bill was launched, which is: what problem are we trying to solve here? Throughout the passage of the bill, its supporters have repeatedly argued that large-scale land ownership is inherently harmful and that smaller community- based land ownership is inherently positive. Those broad-brush positions seem to rely as much on anecdote and ideology as they do on evidence, if not more so. I do not doubt that there are individual examples of poor behaviour by large landowners and exemplary outcomes among community-based ones but, equally, many landowners in Scotland—in fact, I would say the vast majority of them—regardless of size, are good stewards of the land.”
“I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. 16:58”
“We have a Scottish problem with drug and alcohol deaths, and we have a Scottish solution. I say to members that they should not let the perfect stand in the way of the good. Do not miss the opportunity to deal with the drug and alcohol crisis in Scotland. Please, please do not vote the bill down tonight. Give us a chance to keep going, keep discussing, keep debating and keep trying to keep people alive. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19275, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on the legislative consent motion for the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.”
“The Presiding Officer: Mr Ross must begin to conclude. Paul Sweeney: I thank the member for making a very powerful speech. I note that the Law Society of Scotland’s recommendations pertain only to changes to sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the bill, but the bill has 11 sections. Surely it can be amended—it is eminently amendable—and there are ways to do that at the next stage. The Presiding Officer: In conclusion, Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: In conclusion, the bill is entirely amendable, as Paul Sweeney says. That is the simple choice that we have. Do we want to give the bill a chance by making those amendments and then coming back to see whether we can agree on their terms? When Parliament was reconstituted, the late Donald Dewar said that, in this building, the Parliament would deliver “Scottish solutions to Scottish problems”.”
“I ask again: does any SNP or Green member want to intervene and say that they are correct to vote down the bill at this stage and that Liam’s case does not deserve or warrant further discussion? If SNP and Green members do not want to do that, why would they vote for what the Government is asking them to vote for tonight? Why not give the bill a chance, for just a little bit longer? As Brian Whittle said, we might come back here at stage 3 and say no to the bill, because we have not made the changes, the bill has not been improved or there are still issues that stakeholders and front-line experts have issues with. Surely that is a better and a more defendable position than shutting the bill down today, here and now. Paul Sweeney: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I will give way to Paul Sweeney.”
“Her lawyer argued for her request, but it was rejected as out of scope by her DTTO officer, and she was put back on methadone. Debra died of an overdose just a few months later. I ask any SNP and Green member to stand up and intervene if they think that Debra’s case does not warrant our consideration of the bill for a few weeks or months longer. Debra deserves more time. You know that; I know that; we all know that. If not Debra, what about Liam? He was 21. He had a history of childhood trauma, homelessness and severe mental health issues. He asked for rehab after multiple arrests for drug offences, but was placed on a four-month waiting list and told to engage with community services. He was on that waiting list when he overdosed and died.”
“This is a Government that has presided, year after year, over record drug and alcohol deaths. This is a Government that we should not be following. This is a Government that we have to change the course of, and that is what the bill seeks to do. We cannot continue to do the same things over and over again and expect different results. This issue comes down to people—to real lives that are being lost and affected across Scotland. If I cannot convince SNP and Green members, maybe Debra can. Debra, 34, struggled with addiction for more than a decade. She was facing sentencing for shoplifting—a crime that she committed to pay for her addiction. At her drug treatment and testing order assessment, she begged to be put into rehab, as she did not want to continue with methadone treatment.”
“Alcohol deaths are at their highest level since 2008, and are four times higher in our most deprived communities than in our least. For seven straight years, Scotland has been the drug deaths capital not just of the United Kingdom but of Europe. It is embarrassing, and it is time that something was done about it. This is the time—we have an opportunity to do something about it. This is a crisis that was made in Scotland, and it is one that can be fixed in Scotland, but not if we do not have willing participants in the Government. I listened to Maree Todd’s opening and closing remarks. She said, “Get behind the Government. We will keep doing this. We will do that.” I am sorry, but this is a Government that took its “eye off the ball”—not my words, but those of a previous leader of that Government.”
“We have heard that word a lot this afternoon. Does Douglas Ross agree that suffering from apparent stigma is preferable by far to being killed by drugs? Douglas Ross: It is. People are dying. As I said in my opening remarks, while we have been sitting here today, six more Scots have died—six by the end of today; tomorrow, another six; and, over the weekend, a dozen. Do SNP and Green members not care about that? The issues about stigma that Emma Harper mentioned were addressed at committee—she might not agree with what was said, but they were raised and addressed there. However, surely, the fundamental thing is to save lives, and we have the opportunity to do that today. As I said, drug deaths have doubled in 10 years.”
“They will never be in favour of the bill, so, when they get invited to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, they will give critical evidence and say that we should not progress it. However, it is up to us—the democratically elected MSPs in the chamber—to say that although we can consider those views, we need to listen more, debate more and discuss more. Members should be in no doubt that, if they vote against the bill tonight, that will—contrary to what Maggie Chapman thinks—shut off the final legislative opportunity to deal with the issue in this session, which I believe that we must take. Drug deaths have more than doubled in 10 years and are 15 times higher in our most deprived communities than in our least. Russell Findlay: Some SNP members have talked about not wanting to stigmatise drug addicts.”
“Does he acknowledge, for example, that the submission that we have all received from Turning Point Scotland—front-line experts, to use his words—raises the possibility that not only does the bill require improvement but that it could have harmful, unintended consequences by increasing the risk of relapse? Douglas Ross: When I speak about front-line experts, I mean the people who drafted the bill— the people who, day in and day out, see the problems in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee and want to see something happen about them. The ones that I am more suspicious of are those who are funded by the Scottish Government and whose jobs rely on funding from nationalist ministers.”
“There is still an opportunity for people, and even for those in the Government, to change their position and say that they have listened to the debate and that maybe this issue is one that is worth considering during the debate, rather than one where members come into the chamber with a pre-arranged decision— that this issue is one where we can show that the Parliament can be reflective of all voices and that this Government will listen to all sides and simply allow a slightly longer discussion of such an important issue. Patrick Harvie: I recognise the sincerity with which Douglas Ross speaks, but does he accept that the situation regarding the bill is not as simple as he presents it?”
“I also think that, in the days, weeks or perhaps years to come, SNP and Green members will look back on this debate and regret what they have done. They will regret toeing the party line over an issue as important as people’s lives. Opportunities such as this one do not come along every day. Back benchers do not get many opportunities to take forward legislation that has overwhelming public support, is drafted by front- line experts and would save people’s lives. This afternoon, we have one opportunity to keep the discussion going. I say to SNP and Green members that we have not pressed our voting buttons yet.”
“16:48 Douglas Ross: It is a dark day for the Scottish Parliament. I cannot think of another way to sum up the debate. It has been a depressing afternoon, but there have been small moments of pride. I could not have been more proud to sit on the Scottish Conservative benches and listen to Annie Wells, Sue Webber and Brian Whittle, who gave speeches that were impassioned, informed and caring about individuals in their constituencies and regions, because they want us to do better. Those were matched by the contributions of Jackie Baillie, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Michael Marra, Graham Simpson and Paul Sweeney. In summing up a debate about a bill that could save lives, I cannot pick out a single speech from members on the SNP or Green benches that was positive in any way. I think that that is a shame.”
“I recognise the strength of feeling across the chamber and the shared commitment to improving outcomes for people who are affected by substance use. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that any legislative change is not only well intentioned but is workable, evidence based and capable of delivering real and lasting impact. That is the path that we are committed to. The Government remains laser focused on addressing the challenge of our unacceptably high drug and alcohol deaths rate. I am committed to working constructively with members across the chamber to ensure that we deliver on our mission. Paul Sweeney rose— Maree Todd: I am on my last sentence. Our approach offers a broader, more inclusive, more sustainable path forward that truly meets the needs of individuals, families and communities across Scotland.”
“It is a flexible pot of funding that supports ADPs, so that when they have exhausted their pot of money, they can access the fund to support the placement of individuals into residential rehab or extend their stay, should that be needed. That is absolutely how we need to progress; we need a flexible, person-centred, rights-based approach. As we approach the end of the national mission, we continue to work with stakeholders, including those with lived and living experience, in order to develop our future strategy that is built on what works and responds to what is needed. I recognise there is strong support across the chamber for the general principles of the bill and that some members may question the Scottish Government’s position to oppose the legislation. I do not take the decision lightly.”
“Annie Wells: What would the minister say to the gentleman from Calton who said: “There’s no hope. I’ve tried to get treatment, and I just get sent away, put on methadone or onto an extra script”. Like so many others, he is asking why he is being left behind. Can the minister explain that to him? Maree Todd: I reiterate to him that, if residential rehab is what he is seeking, we have increased the level of residential rehab and have invested £38 million in building more facilities and in increasing the bed capacity nationally. We are on target for 1,000 funded places a year, and we are dramatically improving. Just this week, I spoke about the additional placement fund, which Rona Mackay mentioned in her speech.”
“The plan will prioritise prevention and early intervention—areas that the committee rightly warned could be deprioritised under the bill. The plan will also strengthen harm reduction and improve treatment pathways, underpinned by dignity, respect and agency. At its core, there will be a continued commitment to a human rights- based approach, ensuring that everyone who is affected by alcohol and drugs is treated with dignity, respect and compassion and has agency to drive their own treatment and recovery plan. Scotland continues to lead the way with a public health response to alcohol and drugs issues. We remain committed to learning from international evidence and from best practice. It is our intention that the funding will be maintained to support the delivery of the new strategic plan.”
“It’s about creating the conditions where people can heal. It’s about building bridges, not just keeping people alive, but helping them to truly live.” The Scottish Government is committed to a multifaceted, rights-based approach. Our investment is delivering real change. The post- 2026 strategic plan will expand the MAT standards to cover all drugs and alcohol and ensure that residential rehab is available to everyone who needs it, when they need it and wherever they live, for however long they need it. Despite a 13 per cent reduction in drug deaths, the figures remain unacceptably high. We are developing a new alcohol and drug strategic plan, informed by lived experience and key reports, including those by Changing Lives, Audit Scotland and the people’s panel.”
“Brian Whittle: The minister says that there is not one pathway, but does she agree that if somebody comes forward and says, “Please help me to recover,” they should get that recovery? Maree Todd: We say about our MAT standards that when people come forward, they should get access to treatment immediately. In standard 1, we say that they should get same-day access to prescribing. We are absolutely aware of the issue that the member raises, and we are determined to rise and meet it. I joined more than 2,000 people on the Scottish Recovery Consortium’s recovery walk a couple of weeks ago. I will quote Natalie, who opened the event with a powerful, heart-rending testament to Peter Krykant, an activist who sadly passed away earlier this year. She said: “Recovery, real recovery—what I call righteous recovery—is about reducing harm.”
“Improving access to treatment and recovery services is a shared goal that reflects the urgency and importance of tackling the harms that are caused by substance use in Scotland. However, as the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s stage 1 report makes clear, good intentions alone are not enough. Legislation must be workable, evidence based and capable of delivering real and lasting change. Treatment is not a single intervention. Recovery is not a linear journey. A compassionate, person- centred approach recognises that recovery involves rebuilding lives, not just stopping substance use. It involves renewing hope and self- respect, fostering meaningful connections and enabling individuals to take charge of their own lives.”
“They should lodge the amendments that they think need to make a difference, and argue their points. Please support the principles of the bill at decision time. It commits them to nothing except continued consideration of resolutions to this persistent crisis; then, when the bill returns at stage 3, if they cannot vote for it, at least they will know that they tried. 16:40 Maree Todd: In closing, I thank all the members who contributed to the debate, and I reiterate my thanks to the many stakeholders who have made important and constructive contributions throughout the stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. I will begin by recognising the intention behind the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill.”
“Bluntly, Presiding Officer, what does it say if members will overcome their discomfort and uncertainty to continue the debate on a bill about helping people to die but cannot bring themselves to do the same on a bill that is trying to help people who are dealing with addiction to live? My plea to colleagues across the chamber is a simple one: if they believe in giving people who are dealing with addiction the help that they need when they need it, the bill must continue. Do not slam the door on a chance for Parliament and organisations to discuss, debate and build the bill into something better than it is today. I am looking directly at the Scottish Government’s front-bench members—they should give themselves the opportunity to make the bill one that they can support.”
“Those are all issues of importance to the people of Scotland, but perhaps they are not of equal importance. That said, we can debate serious and profoundly significant issues. As a Parliament, we quite rightly voted to let the debate on assisted dying continue. Despite my misgivings about the legislation in its current form, I was one of the members who backed the bill at stage 1. I did that because, although I am far from convinced that I can back the final bill, I am not opposed to the principles behind it. More than that, I want the opportunity to discuss and debate it further. Like members from across the chamber, I want to keep that conversation going.”
“I began my contribution with a call to arms for those dealing with the consequences of drug addiction, when I used the phrase, “You keep talking, we keep dying.” That is a plea for action, but what happens if even the talking stops? What happens if we shut down discussion on an issue that continually highlights not only the Scottish Government’s failure but this Parliament’s failure? Does falling silent and moving on do more to help? There are certainly other conversations that the Parliament seems all too willing to have. We have spent days debating hundreds of amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that will not build any houses; there have been three separate members’ bills about the welfare of dogs; and, after the October recess, we return to late nights of amendments to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.”
“Does the member accept that, if those changes were made at stage 2, we would arrive at the final day of stage 3 with a bill that was so fundamentally different that it would be a piece of legislation that had not been consulted on and on which witnesses had not had the opportunity to comment? Brian Whittle: Does the member mean bills such as the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill, which had two thirds of it chopped away at stage 2? This is hardly the first time that members have radically altered a bill after stage 1. That bill was so thoroughly and comprehensively altered from its original form that it had to be renamed before it could be passed into law. Voting for the principles of the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill today binds members to absolutely nothing, except to agree that they will keep every option on the table.”
“I appreciate that there are strongly held views across the chamber on the merits of my colleague Douglas Ross’s bill in its current form. I know that it does not appeal to everyone as an approach, but to reject it now, before MSPs and organisations have had an opportunity to properly consider it and before they have had a chance to change it, feels, at best, short sighted and, at worst, politically motivated. Patrick Harvie: With the best will in the world, I cannot remember many bills that have gone through the stage 1 process and led to a committee report that shows quite so many extensive changes being required. [Interruption.] If members will permit me, I will continue.”
“What the Scottish Government has done—what this Parliament has pushed for so far—has fallen way short. That brings us to the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill, which says that if someone is brave enough to ask for help—that is a brave thing to do—they will get the help that they need when they need it. I can only imagine the feeling of summoning up the courage, strength and humility to ask for help only to be told that it is not there, or that it will not be there for weeks, months or longer. How must that wait feel? How must it feel for a person to be desperate for help but to know that, by the time that it arrives, they might no longer be ready or able to accept it? If that happens to someone once, how likely is it that they will be willing to ask for help ever again?”
“We chose to take the uncertain path because we needed to try something—anything and everything that we could—to maybe, just maybe, put an end to Scotland’s greatest shame. To this day, I and many of my fellow MSPs still have huge concerns about safer consumption rooms and are yet to be convinced about their effectiveness, but few if any of us regret making the choice to try. We were prepared to set aside our politics and our concerns because there was more in the motion that we agreed with. We decided that the risks of going forward were outweighed by the damage that is caused by standing still. Today, it is not clear how far forward we have come. Drug deaths and levels of addiction remain stubbornly high, and the limited data coming from the Thistle is hardly transformational.”
“I have lost count of how many times those damning words have been repeated to me by the people who are dealing with this tragedy every day. I have used the phrase in the chamber. It has lost none of its resonance, and it should embarrass us all that so many years have passed since it was first uttered. My final debate in the previous session of Parliament was about the drug deaths crisis. That day, the Scottish Conservatives supported a Government motion that included agreeing to trial a safe drug consumption room. We did so despite our considerable reservations about the effectiveness of such a scheme. We chose to do so because we understood that we needed to try something new. We needed to break out of the endless cycle of rising drug deaths, blame, promises and nothing ever really changing.”
“Before I get into the main body of my closing speech on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I have to say that I, too, sit on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and I am concerned that some members have skewed the committee report to fit a Scottish Government narrative. Although many of the witnesses had reservations—as do many members in the chamber—not one said that we should reject the bill at stage 1. When we talk about this issue, I am acutely aware that we are speaking for the thousands who have died, the thousands who remain trapped in addiction and the countless family members who are sharing that crisis or mourning those whom we have lost. Presiding Officer, “You keep talking, we keep dying” is a powerful phrase.”
“The committee’s report outlines fundamental flaws in the legislation, from affordability and deliverability to the tension between the bill’s principles—”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Maree Todd: Yes. Brian Whittle: I am grateful to the minister for giving way, but I am slightly confused, because you have spent the first part of your speech backing the principles of the bill. Why are you then going on to say that you will not back it? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please speak through the chair. Brian Whittle: Surely the principles of the bill are about the right to recovery, which you have alluded to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Maree Todd: It is clear, from the evidence that was presented throughout the scrutiny process, that the bill raises profound legal, practical and resource concerns that risk undermining service delivery rather than enhancing it.”
“With regard to the point on CAMHS spending, we recognise the commitments that Mr Whittle mentions and are resolved to work constructively with our partners to ensure that we can deliver on the commitment for 1 per cent of NHS funding to go to CAMHS and, indeed, on the commitment for spending on mental health services to increase to 10 per cent of the total NHS front-line budget.”
“Of course, we continue to engage with partners and local government to understand what further action can be taken. On the point about progress on the commission’s recommendations, as the commission’s report acknowledged, and as I touched on in my statement, there has been a sea change over recent years—not least because of the impact of the Covid pandemic—and a second mental health and wellbeing strategy has been introduced. The actions that I have set out demonstrate that the commission’s core recommendations, which the Government accepted either outright or in principle, have strongly informed our strategic position and the actions that are being taken forward via the delivery plan.”
“As I touched on, since 2020, £860 million has been invested in community mental health services from two funding streams: one for children and young people and another for adults. As I said in my statement, the funding for children and young people has been baselined into local government funding. Around the inception of that funding, a framework was published that set out the types of interventions that it would help to support and the vision for community mental health support. The evidence that we have seen to date—the number of organisations that have been able to secure funding and deliver projects on the ground locally, and the point that I made about around 80,000 people receiving support in the last year for which we have data—demonstrates the significant impact of that funding.”
“The commission on mental health services made its recommendations in 2019 but, last month, the children’s commissioner said: “evidence of progress by the Scottish Government in many areas is seriously lacking.” What guarantee do we have that the Government will finally deliver after six years? The children’s commissioner also highlighted that the Scottish Government had made a key commitment that at least 1 per cent of NHS funding should go towards young people’s mental health services, which has not been fulfilled. Will the minister commit to delivering that promise by the end of the parliamentary session? Tom Arthur: I will take each of Brian Whittle’s questions in turn. He referred to the impact on the ground.”
“Many essential mental health services that it provides are in danger of disappearing, further exacerbating the pressure on our statutory services. Last week, I was at the launch event for Voluntary Health Scotland’s manifesto, the key theme of which is prevention. We need significantly better interaction between the third sector and statutory services, with an emphasis on prevention. It is great that councils have more money, but what assessment has the Scottish Government made of what is happening on the ground? Many leisure centres, pools and community halls have shut because of a lack of local government funding. Those spaces provide front-line support services for our kids by offering, first, inclusion and, secondly, an outlet.”
“I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. The rise in poor mental health among children is one of the most concerning health issues that we face in Scotland, even in an environment in which poor health outcomes are too common. Scotland has had a significant spike in the need for CAMHS services, along with a massive jump in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and neurodivergence referrals. We even have situations in which health boards cannot disaggregate CAMHS numbers from neurodivergence numbers. That cannot be allowed to continue. How can we solve an issue if we do not understand the problem? We also have a third sector, which we rely on heavily, that is on its knees.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the mental health budget has been reduced in the 2025-26 autumn budget revision. (S6F-04374)”
“Gillian Martin: —and that members who have set out their position of sitting on their hands may take the better option. They will be able to look those ENGOs and those people who want us to get on with this in the eye and say that they supported the carbon budgets as advised by the Climate Change Committee. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the draft Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Scottish Carbon Budgets) Amendment Regulations 2025. Business Motion 18:39”
“Gillian Martin: I have only 30 seconds left, and I want to make some other points. The Presiding Officer: I am afraid that the cabinet secretary must wind up. Gillian Martin: I am disappointed that members may abstain on the vote, but it is for me to deal with my own disappointment. Nevertheless, I think that the environmental non-governmental organisations that got in touch over the past week to ask members to vote for the carbon budgets will also be disappointed, and the people who support those ENGOs and who want to see Parliament working as one—together—on climate action will be disappointed, too. I would like to think that in the next few minutes, there might be some soul searching around the vote—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the cabinet secretary.”
“We have set out our carbon budgets, taking on board the recommendations on the level of those budgets, and we have put them before Parliament to vote on today. That will set in train our delivering the draft climate change plan. I have said that it is my aim to give that to Parliament and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee by the end of October. Obviously, it is up to the Parliamentary Bureau as to when that happens, but I have said time and time again that I want to give Parliament the greatest amount of time in which to scrutinise the draft climate change plan. I reiterate that it is a draft plan, which can be altered and changed before we publish the final plan; I have set out a commitment to do that by the end of the current session of Parliament. Sarah Boyack: Will the cabinet secretary give way?”
“In a very uncertain world, where we can provide policy stability and ambition, it is incumbent on us to do so. Patrick Harvie: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Gillian Martin: I will take an intervention from Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie: Perhaps that is one reason why we are not seeing the investment in the clean heat sector that we could be seeing if the Government was giving crystal clarity. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the criticisms that have been made this evening are about not only process, but substance? The very areas in which the new climate plan needs to accelerate action are those areas in which the SNP has been slowing down, watering down, diluting and delaying. Gillian Martin: It is about process, and the process is that we vote on the carbon budgets.”
“As I said to Willie Rennie, the climate change plan will be a plan that matches the targets. If Parliament— Patrick Harvie: Will the member give way? Gillian Martin: I am getting the sense that Parliament is not going to vote down the targets, but most members look as if they are going to abstain. Again, I find that very disappointing. Michael Matheson rightly pointed out the importance of stability and staying the course on our climate ambition. I was told very recently by a company—Hitachi—that is about to base itself in Glasgow that the reason it chose Glasgow as the location for its UK headquarters is that Scotland is staying the course on its climate ambition: Glasgow has set out its ambition to be a net zero city by 2030, and Scotland has set out its ambition to reach net zero by 2045. That is what brings in investment.”