Official Report 973KB pdf
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19649, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now. I ask Graeme Dey to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) the following programme of business—
Tuesday 18 November 2025
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Scottish Government Debate: Supporting Scotland’s Fishing Industry
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 19 November 2025
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic;
Finance and Local Government
followed by Scottish Labour Party Business
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.10 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Thursday 20 November 2025
11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.30 pm Portfolio Questions:
Climate Action and Energy, and Transport
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill
followed by Financial Resolution: Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill
followed by Ministerial Statement: Publication of UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 2ABC Report
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
Tuesday 25 November 2025
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 26 November 2025
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands;
Health and Social Care
followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.10 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Thursday 27 November 2025
11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
2.15 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.15 pm Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions
followed by Portfolio Questions:
Social Justice and Housing
followed by Scottish Government Business
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 17 November 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.—[Graeme Dey]
17:12
Two statements are urgently needed: one on Alexander Dennis Ltd and another on the future of Grangemouth and project willow. Both are of national significance. They are not parochial concerns but defining tests of whether the Government can deliver a credible industrial strategy for Scotland. I have made prior requests to my business manager, and directly to the minister and the Deputy First Minister, for ministerial statements on those issues. I am doing so again today in the chamber, because I feel that I owe it to my constituents and because time is not on our side.
On Alexander Dennis, it has been almost two months since the Government’s £4 million intervention was announced. At the time, that was described as
“a bridge to a sustainable future”,
but what is that future, and for how long can that bridge stand without solid progress beneath it? There has been no public update on how the intervention is working, what milestones have been set or how the company’s long-term future is being secured.
We need answers on what discussions ministers have had with their United Kingdom counterparts on procurement reform to ensure fair competition for British-built buses. We also need clarity on what has changed in Scotland’s procurement systems to ensure that local jobs, local suppliers and environmental benefits are properly valued. Without that, this so-called bridge is little more than a pause before decline. Scotland cannot afford to lose its last major bus manufacturer or the highly skilled workforce at Falkirk and Larbert, whose livelihoods still hang in the balance.
At Grangemouth, the situation is equally pressing. The Grangemouth industrial cluster strategy has been published, building on project willow, the just transition plan and the growth deal, but words on a page will not sustain new jobs or new investment. We need delivery, and the Parliament deserves a detailed update on investor engagement; discussions with the current owners of the former refinery site, Petroineos, on how it will be used in the future; and how public funding, including the £25 million in the just transition fund for Grangemouth and the UK Government’s promised £200 million from the National Wealth Fund are being allocated and used, if they are at all.
The people of Grangemouth deserve transparency and assurance that real opportunities are being created, or are in the process of being created, for workers through retraining, re-employment and industrial renewal. Alexander Dennis and Grangemouth are tests of this Government’s seriousness about sustaining our industrial base. They are about whether we still make things here and still value skilled work and community prosperity, which is why I again use this time to urge the Government to deliver full ministerial statements and updates on both issues as soon as is practically possible. The Parliament, and the people whom we serve, deserve clear answers and visible progress, because, as ever, time is running out.
There is a process in place in this institution to request statements, which is via the business managers of the relevant parties. I will check later tonight, but I am not aware of any current request on those topics having been received from the Conservative Party through the formal processes. That is the proper process—not raising the matter in the chamber in this way.
This Government has shown itself to be willing—this was particularly the case with Jamie Hepburn, my predecessor—to consider and often accede to appropriate statement requests. If Mr Kerr or any other member wishes to request statements on any topic, there are proper processes to be followed, as I said. If requests come via those channels, the Government will, of course, give them appropriate consideration.
I am aware of the processes and have followed them, both by going through the party business management route and by directly soliciting a statement from the relevant minister and from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans. We like to think that the Parliament is run by the parties, but I hope that the minister agrees that individual members of the Parliament still have a very important role in seeking the opportunity to have issues that matter to their constituents raised by way of a statement or any other appropriate method or approach.
If Mr Kerr wants to circumvent the process, or the position of his business manager, that is a matter for him. However, the proper way to take the matter forward is for the Conservative Party’s member on the bureau to raise it with the Government, and it will then be discussed and considered at the bureau.
I have just sent those emails across to you now, minister, but you will obviously have had the previous—[Interruption.]
Wait—hang on!
Let us hear Mr Eagle. Please speak through the chair, Mr Eagle.
Just to back up what Mr Kerr has said, he has sent letters to the minister on several occasions about the matters that he raised, and the minister will not be unaware of them. We have sent letters, as we always do, but I absolutely concur with the member. Surely, on matters as significant as this, which have a massive economic impact and involve huge infrastructure for our people—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Eagle.
—the member has the right to bring them to the Parliament in any way that he chooses. As my party’s business manager, I have sent those letters across tonight.
I welcome that clarity on my point, which was that we had not previously received such requests. As I said a moment ago, we will give due consideration to any requests that are made to the Scottish Government on those matters.
Oh, come on.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]
Go away!
Presiding Officer, Scottish National Party members are shouting, “Go away!” That is exactly what the SNP would like: they want every Opposition MSP to just go away and let them have their playtime to themselves—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Kerr.
I was elected here—as we all were—to represent constituents’ interests. I ask whether it is in order for individual members of the Parliament, regardless of their party, to seek statements from ministers on matters that pertain to the welfare and interests of their constituents. Is it the case that I, as an individual member of the Parliament, have the right to do so?
Under standing orders, it is the case that this particular item of business can be used for members to call for items of business that they wish to see in a future programme of the Parliament.
Motion agreed to.
Previous
Bus Services