This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
It has been well used as a vehicle for raising questions and has allowed the committee to keep a focus on the issue for some 16 months, for which I give credit to the petitioner, but is there anything further to be done with it?
Dave Stewart, Liam McArthur and I visited the site today and, when we told your man in charge how disruptive the noise had been when it happened before, he was profusely apologetic.
We are not trying to talk down the NHS or those who work for it if we express genuinely felt concerns. If we try to express the concerns articulated to us by our constituents who work in the NHS, how can we possibly be trying to talk it down?
I have a particularly difficult and frustrating case in St Cyrus, within my constituency, where a Travellers’ site has been built completely without planning permission.
That is why it is so important, particularly on the CCUS front, that we see a determination from the UK Government on which sites and emitters will be part of that process, so that there is an investable proposition for those industry colleagues as quickly as possible.
SCOTS said: “There appears to be a view expressed in the Report that such a default is not appropriate as it does not give local authorities the flexibility to devise 20mph limits that they consider appropriate for their areas.
I am struck by the fact that the session 6 committee expressed a view that“the extent of UK Ministers’ new delegated powers in devolved areas amounts to a significant constitutional change”.Do you agree with that assessment?