Graeme Downie MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, as well as for last week’s news of the significant infrastructure investment in the Rosyth dockyard in my constituency, which is highly welcome for jobs in the area. As the Minister said, the real defence dividend will be the long-term skills. We have seen skills devolved to the Scottish Government, but they have utterly failed when it comes to defence skills because of their absolutely childish attitude towards the defence industry. Seventy-two hours does not make up for 20 years of failure. Will the Minister meet me to discuss options to ensure that skills, and the delivery of skills opportunities in Scotland’s defence sector, can be delivered for people in my constituency and across Scotland, so that they can take advantage of the long-term opportunities and sustainable jobs that exist?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Procedure Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his question. I have now been intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford and asked a question; I wonder exactly what the third part of the trio to complete the hat-trick might be. We considered matters such as that, and we received some evidence. However, as I stated, we did not find enough concrete recommendations to come up with a full report as to how the scheme might be further improved. The example he expresses is the kind of thing that proxy voting is designed for already. We did have some evidence as to how the system is currently, as I said in the statement, not exactly open to everyone, and sometimes not entirely clear. However, the circumstances that he describes represent some of the times that proxy voting could be used.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Procedure Committee · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee, following the publication of our second report of this Session, entitled “Proxy voting: Review of arrangements introduced in Session 2024-25”. Before turning to our inquiry and report, I would first like to express my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee from across the House for their dedicated work on this timely report, as well as to Gavin and his team of Clerks, who guided us through this process, and to all who gave and submitted evidence. I put on record my thanks to everyone who took part in the inquiry. It is our view that this report comes at an important moment. With more than 300 new Members of Parliament elected in July 2024, many colleagues may be unfamiliar with the origins and evolution of proxy voting in the House. Our aim in conducting this review and publishing our report was, first and foremost, to assess the arrangements introduced in this Session, but in doing so we have sought to clarify the principles and underpinning of the scheme, assess its current operation and make recommendations for its future development. As many Members are aware, proxy voting was first introduced in 2019 in response to greater calls for support for Members during parental absence. That landmark change was made in recognition of the reality that Members, like those we represent, face personal circumstances that may temporarily prevent them from attending their place of work. Since then, the scheme has expanded to cover long-term illness, serious injury and, more recently, additional provisions that have been brought forward relating to complications during pregnancy and fertility treatment. These developments reflect a growing recognition that Members should not be forced to choose between their personal health and family responsibilities, and the performance of their solemn constitutional duties in this place. The Committee, like our predecessors before it, firmly believes that the arrangements in this space must continue to evolve to reflect the lived experience of Members of Parliament. I turn to our inquiry. Late last year, the Leader of the House asked us to review the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury that were introduced at the start of this Parliament and are due to expire at the end of this Session. As part of our inquiry, we also considered the permanent provisions introduced in November 2024 for complications related to pregnancy and childbirth, and for fertility treatment. Because of the early point in the Parliament at which we conducted the inquiry, we received only limited evidence. Uptake of proxy votes remains relatively low, and that has limited the evidence base available to the Committee in our inquiry. However, the feedback that we received was constructive and thoughtful, and it has informed our recommendations. We conducted a thorough assessment of the arrangements introduced in the present Session of Parliament. First, the Committee puts on the record its strong support for the continued evolution of proxy voting for pregnancy, childbirth and fertility-related absences. From the beginning, the arrangements in this space have rightly grown organically in response to evolving circumstances. This growth has, in our view, worked well, and continues to do so. We accordingly recommend that the arrangements introduced in November 2024 remain in place permanently. In our view, they are clearly defined and provide vital support to Members at a time when flexible support is most in need. Secondly, on the question of long-term serious illness and injury, we sound a slightly more cautious note. Although the temporary arrangements have provided valuable support to Members across the House, we nevertheless heard concerns about the consistency, transparency and integrity of the scheme. We have also heard concerns that the scheme is not constructed broadly enough—I will touch on that later in my statement. On both points, however, we feel that there is at present insufficient evidence on which to base concrete recommendations for detailed changes to the scope or operation of the scheme. We have therefore taken the view that these issues must be taken in the round before any firm decision is made to put the provisions on a permanent footing. We therefore recommend that the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury, which were introduced at the start of this Session, be extended to the end of this Parliament. That would provide continuity of support to Members, while providing sufficient evidence base for further work to be undertaken by this Committee. In the conduct of this inquiry, the Committee also gave thought to the future of proxy voting. Our Report sets out what we consider to be the three guiding principles that underlie the scheme at present, which we believe should guide any future developments. First, physical absence from the Parliamentary Estate must remain a core requirement. Proxy voting is intended for Members who are genuinely unable to be present. Although we recognise that exceptions may apply in cases of medical recovery or maternity leave, the principle must be upheld. We must avoid a situation where Members vote by proxy while actively participating in other business on the Estate. Second, the integrity of the scheme is paramount. Proxy voting is a privilege that should be exercised cautiously. Members must exercise it cautiously and avoid any all conduct that could undermine public confidence in the system, thus upholding the highest levels of propriety. Third, supplementary mechanisms that can achieve similar aims to proxy voting, such as pairing, slipping and nodding through, remain important. These informal arrangements have long supported Members who face short term or less severe absences, and they should continue to operate alongside proxy voting, offering flexibility and fairness to all Members. Our Report also acknowledges that the current scheme does not cover every circumstance in which Members cannot be present on the Estate to vote in Divisions that they may find themselves in, and it notes the strength of feeling and frustration from some quarters on this matter. We also noted the increased focus on accessibility, health and wellbeing, which is rightly finding expression in this Parliament. We are following with interest the inquiries conducted by the Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee in this space. We hope that this Report, far from being the final word on proxy voting, starts the conversation anew—in a new Parliament with a new cohort of Members—about what proxy voting seeks to do for them and how the scheme can best be adapted to achieve that. To that end, our Report proposed that we conduct a further review of proxy voting later in the Parliament. That would allow us to gather more evidence, particularly as more and more Members use the scheme as the Parliament progresses, and to consider the findings of the inquiries being undertaken by the Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee. The Procedure Committee is committed to ensuring that the procedures of the House of Commons remain responsive to the needs of its Members. Proxy voting is a vital part of that commitment, and we hope that our Report will assist the House in maintaining a fair and effective method for all Members to exercise their constitutional functions and vote in Divisions in the House. I therefore commend this Report to the House.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Procedure Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I know that was a very difficult day for him. We spoke briefly on that day, and I know how hard it was. I think everyone on all sides of that debate had a great deal of sympathy for what had happened. My belief is that that kind of thing should never have to happen again. As I said, there is more work to be done on proxy voting and making sure it is fully fit and covers more circumstances; it is just that within the scope of the inquiry we led, we were not able to consider and make concrete recommendations on those points. When the Committee returns to the topic later in the Parliament, I am sure my hon. Friend will be a key voice in bringing such evidence to the Committee to make sure it is considered fully.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Procedure Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work he does with us on the Committee. His contributions are always valuable and should be listened to carefully. Yes, we considered both those matters. As I outlined in my speech, we appreciate that maintaining the principle that we should use proxy voting only when away from the estate does not cover everyone’s circumstances. Certainly, in the limited evidence we had from the inquiry, we pointed to the need to keep this under review throughout this Parliament before making any arrangements permanent. I would hope the Committee would look through that during the Parliament.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  We are having an absolutely important debate today. It is important to make sure that we have accessible pavements for all, for all the reasons that the hon. Lady has outlined. In Fife, we have seen the implementation of the pavement parking ban just this week. Although it has been broadly welcomed, there are some challenges with implementation. Starting with a blanket ban and then allowing exemptions has been challenging for local authorities, which are under a lot of pressure with resources both for management and implementation. Does the hon. Lady agree that to make sure we have an effective parking ban, resources must be in place to make sure that exemptions in rural areas and other parts are effective, and that enforcement is done correctly? Otherwise, we will lose the support of drivers and the effect we are hoping to achieve.

• 2 Sept 2025 · The Battle of Britain · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a powerful point about the preparedness of the RAF being much more than what was perhaps seen by the public. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Hurricane pilots of 602 and 603 Squadrons, based in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, who conducted the first interception of world war two over the firth of Forth, which borders my constituency, when Junkers 88 aircraft sought to attack HMS Hood in the Forth? The action resulted in the death of 16 civilians on the ground and three German aircrew, but it showed how prepared the RAF was even at that early stage of the conflict.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Extending the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  This weekend I met with Karine Osipyan and Artur Manucharyan, who have been told by the Home Office that they were granted permission under the Ukraine family scheme in error, and that their application under the Ukraine permission extension scheme might not be granted. I wrote to the Home Office at the beginning of June on their case but we have yet to hear back. Will the Minister look into this case specifically and meet me to discuss it further?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member reflects the concern that we all have to make sure that our constituents can continue to go on holiday, and that trade can continue to happen, but does he agree that, in addition to some of the information that we heard, there was also a concern about the cost of doing nothing? That could actually cause costs to go much higher than any estimate given by anyone in the evidence sessions, therefore we should proceed as quickly as we can.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This morning, we had a witness say that they did not believe the revenue certainty mechanism was required, that the market would essentially take care of the solution itself, and that the mandate was all that was needed. What is your response to that, and how would it affect your company in particular? Doug McKiernan: Without this Bill and the mandate and quotas that have been set, I think the investment industry will step back from that, which would hurt us as a company. We would not be able to scale up. It would make things extremely difficult and would push the pace at which we could get to net zero to the right.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sitting in the audience, you will have heard me ask this question of the last person. We had a witness this morning who said they did not believe the revenue certainty mechanism was required, and that the market would essentially take care of this on its own. You described it there as “compelling”. Do you agree that the RCM is required in the Bill, or do you think the market could take care of itself? Ruben van Grinsven: Ideally, you want the market to take care of it. As evidenced by a lack of investment to date and by a lot of feedback from industry, it is difficult for investors now, without the revenue certainty mechanism, to invest. Is it essential? That is a very black-and-white question. I think it is going to be extremely helpful to convince people to invest. We absolutely support the Bill because additional SAF production in the UK is going to be helpful for decarbonising the aviation sector, and we very much support that. Additional supply projects in the UK are going to be very helpful to meet the targets and help decarbonise the aviation industry. Yes, we very much support the Bill.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This question has come up in some of the other discussions today, but do you think there is enough in the Bill to properly incentivise the move beyond first and second generation SAFs, into what I think some of the witnesses described as the ultimate place we want to end up in—and where there is probably the most opportunity for UK IP, UK innovation and subsequently UK jobs and growth—such that the UK is where SAF happens and is created, as well as where it is developed in future? Do you think there is enough in the Bill for that? How do you see the Bill, and the next steps after that, as making sure that we can really achieve that and ensure that proper added value for the economy, while meeting climate targets? Mike Kane: First, you are a great champion for Edinburgh airport in your constituency. You know the value of aviation to local communities in particular and you have championed that since you have been here. Does the Bill give you innovation? I am not sure it does. I think it gives you a platform for what you want to do, in terms of the contracts that we will let going forward, which are about going from HEFA and first generation, to second and third generation. This gives you the substructure to build that capacity for intellectual property, inviting bids for various ways of doing things, and then protecting and supporting that, and bringing new entrants into the market. I think that is what the Bill does.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q To pick up on an item raised by Mr Greenwood, we have heard the Government talking about how this is the first legislation of its kind in the world. What impact do the other members of the panel feel it will have on the global market for SAF, and for airlines more generally? Rob Griggs: One of the key reasons why we support the RCM and see it as necessary is that we have a mandate that—unlike the EU mandate, for example—has an advanced subsection. We therefore require advanced SAF. At the moment, something like 85% of all the SAFs produced in the world are first-generation HEFA—hydro-processed esters and fatty acids. That is used cooking oil-type SAF; it is perfectly legitimate, but it is ultimately feedstock-constrained. The world will be drawing on more and more SAF, and at some point we will be likely to reach what people are calling a HEFA tipping point, where there just will not be enough of it. The UK, through its policies, is focusing on second-generation advanced SAFs, which are technically more challenging and more expensive, but also more scalable. As airlines, the absolute worst-case scenario that we are trying to avoid, and that we think the RCM is really important in helping us avoid, is a situation whereby in 2030 the suppliers who are the mandated party simply cannot access through the market the advanced SAF they need to fulfil their mandate obligations. It is not being made anywhere at the moment. A lot of HEFA is being made, but not advanced SAF. We need advanced SAF here in the UK. The US is making some advanced SAFs, but they have feedstocks that are not for our mandate—they are often crop-based. Without the RCM driving the production of advanced SAFs, we are concerned that we simply will not be able to access it. If that happens, the buy-out price kicks in for the suppliers, which is likely to be passed on to airlines. The worst case scenario is that, in 2030, the mandate essentially fails because there is high buy-out, all the cost gets passed on to airlines, there are no SAFs, which means no decarbonisation, and then we are unable to claim our SAF against the emissions trading scheme obligations, for example. To be clear, we do not think that the RCM should cover all mandated volumes of advanced SAF; there needs to be competition. It should be there to get those first plants built, and to provide a quantity of that mandate—potentially a substantial quantity, but part, not all, of it. If we can get a competitive scheme, where the market for advanced SAF is becoming competitive, and the RCM helps to get some of those first difficult plants built, the UK could be in an advantage position, because the global market for SAF, at some point, will need to expand into the advanced SAF area, and the UK could have got a head start on that through our approach. That is the upside of what we are doing, notwithstanding the challenges of getting it right. Gaynor Hartnell: The question was about the impact on global supply. I think Rob is absolutely right that the UK’s policy is unique. It is very much envied. I have been at many conferences where the greenhouse gas basis, versus it being volumetric, was lauded. The existence of the RCM is envied by SAF developers in other jurisdictions. It is already having an influence globally by being visible in doing this special seeking-out of waste-based SAFs, which are incredibly challenging to develop. These projects are very complicated, which is why the RCM is totally necessary; I disagree with Paul Greenwood about that. Paul Greenwood: Let me build on the question of necessity. To be clear, I know that everyone is trying to do the right thing here, but the reason this is being called for, for entities in the marketplace, is because it is very difficult to manufacture things in the UK, and that is because energy costs, carbon dioxide costs and labour costs are incredibly high. It is very difficult. Not very long ago, we used to have six refineries in the UK; one of them was shut down for operations and another has gone insolvent. There are four refineries left, so it is very difficult to manufacture things effectively in the UK at a profitable level. What the Bill does is say, “Because of that problem, we’re going to incur more costs in a niche, new business, and we’re going to input that cost on to the existing fuel suppliers, which are already struggling to survive.” We need to be clear about what problem we are trying to solve. Effectively, I think this is a distraction. We need to look at the core fundamentals that are impacting our manufacturing base in the UK, because that is the primary struggle that we have.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You alluded to this earlier, but have you done any work with your customers—either passenger or freight—on how much they care about SAF specifically, or sustainability more generally? If you were not working towards the kind of targets that you are, do you think that would impact customer choice? Do you see this as a competitive advantage between yourselves, or globally as well? Also, to pick up on something that Jonathon mentioned earlier, do you think there is enough in this legislation on what needs to happen after, if it is passed, to encourage the necessary investments, particularly in third-generation SAF and beyond that? Jonathon Counsell: On the customer perspective, we did a lot of surveying of our customers, and it is no surprise that there was a bit of scepticism about offsets and all the history with those. When it comes to SAF, I think there is general recognition and support: people think, “You burn a lot of fuel, so it just makes sense that you are trying to find a lower carbon fuel.” There is a lot more acceptance of that. We have always offered voluntary schemes for our customers to offset their emissions. We provide offsets, carbon removals and SAF. The uptake is very low, but SAF is proving quite popular, so I think there is greater acceptance of SAF as a solution for aviation than some of the others. What I will say is that corporates have gone gangbusters—if I can use that technical term—on SAF, and we do something called SAF Scope 3. A lot of the big corporates set very ambitious net zero targets by 2030, particularly professional services firms such as consulting firms, banks and law firms. When they do their carbon footprinting, a huge proportion is from their flying activity, so they come to us and say, “I want to address my carbon emissions”, and we can offer them SAF. We can sell the carbon attributes as what they call a Scope 3, and that has literally taken off. Most of the SAF that we bought last year came with a SAF Scope 3 deal from a corporate. That is fantastic, because we can use that revenue to reinvest and buy more SAF. From a corporate market, there is definitely very good acceptance of the power of SAF to reduce our emissions.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I understand from my helpful conversations with the Minister that this is taking existing guidance and applying it to law, but I understand the hon. Member’s concern. My final point is to ask the Minister to keep this issue under active review. If any new evidence comes to light to show that the primary legislation is acting as a barrier to the Government’s position being reflected in reality, I hope he will consider opportunities to correct that in due course. We all hope that the Government’s clear intention that people with Parkinson’s and other conditions are in no way—

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend will know, my amendment specifically mentions MS, and she and I have had shared friends who have suffered with that condition. We must ensure that there is a clear understanding of the reality of such conditions on the ground, so that when these provisions are delivered in reality by assessors, people are able to access the additional support that they need. Welfare reform is undoubtedly needed after the mess of a system that we were left by the previous Government, but wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of the Bill is as clear as possible. We must ensure that those affected are in no doubt about what our intent is, so that that is indisputable and we truly give effect to the intentions behind the Bill. I again thank the Minister for his incredibly helpful intervention, but we will ensure that the reality reflects the Government’s excellent intentions.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with my hon. Friend and his family. I know what a challenging time it has been, and the fact that he has been able to carry on his duties extensively, representing his constituents, is to his credit and something that his family will be incredibly proud of. As I said, the Minister has been generous with his time, and I do not believe for a moment that his intention is to restrict access to the severe conditions criteria for those with Parkinson’s. Those words from the Dispatch Box are incredibly helpful, but I ask him to ensure that he keeps a close eye on the situation.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to amendment 17, which I tabled with the support of 62 Members from across the House. It would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria. I have been working with Parkinson’s UK, and as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I have heard concerns from those living with the condition, and their carers and families, about the problems they already face in accessing support through the welfare system, because of fundamental misunderstandings about the fluctuating nature of the condition. Those concerns have been exacerbated by the Bill, particularly paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which states that in order to meet the severe conditions claimant criteria, “at least one of the descriptors…constantly applies.” Someone with Parkinson’s, MS, ME or other similar conditions may be able to carry out one of the activities in the descriptors such as walking for 50 metres or pressing a button in the morning, but then not be able to do so by the afternoon. Under my initial reading of the Bill, that means that someone with Parkinson’s could never be a severe conditions criteria claimant because they would not meet the descriptor “constantly”. I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement with me on this matter, but the language used in the Bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson’s. As the Minister has helpfully said, and as he explained to me prior to the debate, much of the explanation that I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the activity in the descriptor “repeatedly, reliably and safely”. If they cannot, the criteria will count as applying constantly and they will be considered a severe conditions criteria claimant.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much thank the Minister for his intervention, which I think will provide extensive reassurance to those with Parkinson’s and other conditions. I will keep a watching brief on this measure as it progresses, and I am aware that Parkinson’s UK has today received its own legal advice, which indicates that the application of the measure might not be quite as clear as the Minister intends. My other concern is about the perhaps undue burden that the measure places on the guidance, as well as the perhaps unfair position in which it puts an assessor, which could lead to an inconsistent application of the guidance.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to take one final intervention.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Spending Review 2025 on Scotland. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. On behalf of the Scottish contingent, I would like to thank the weather for finally breaking slightly, so that we can enjoy these much more suitable conditions—something else delivered by a Labour Government. It is a privilege to discuss today the implications of the recent UK Government spending review for Scotland—a review that marks a pivotal moment for our country, offering both opportunities and challenges that we must confront with clarity and resolve. Let me begin by acknowledging some of the significant investments that were announced in the spending review and associated announcements. The allocation of £25 million for the Forth green freeport, which includes Rosyth in my constituency, is a welcome development and an investment that has the potential to transform the local economy, create jobs and position Scotland at the forefront of green innovation. I commend the Government for recognising the strategic importance of that initiative. In addition, the provision of £234 million in local funds to bring investment to communities across Scotland is a vital step forward.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Just to clarify, there was a ferry from Rosyth to Europe when the SNP was in power. The SNP failed to support it previously, and has taken no action to investigate the legal issues around border control, which are believed by many to be a problem that the Scottish Government could solve. Once again, they have been content to blame the UK Government, without even investigating the problem themselves, when in fact they could have worked constructively either with the previous Conservative Government or with this Government to overcome it.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  As others have said, Sir John, I thank you very much for your patience this morning. After a previous, similar Westminster Hall debate a number of months ago, a colleague said that chairing it was like being a stranger walking in and trying to moderate a fight at a Scottish wedding. I suspect that is how someone sitting in that Chair feels when these debates happen. I thank everyone for their participation this morning; it has been quite an encouraging debate, and there were even, occasionally, moments of agreement—something that in my experience rarely happens at a Scottish wedding. Occasionally, they agree on “I do”, and not very much more. I will respond briefly to some of the contributions that were made. I have heard the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) describe the maternity services in his constituency a number of times, and I hope he continues to do so until we finally see a solution there. It is utterly unacceptable that women find themselves in that very dangerous position, and I hope that there is good feeling and good will from the Scottish Government to solve those real problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) discussed Glasgow’s potential. As someone who was born in Edinburgh and now lives in Fife, I have to say that the east coast obviously has much greater potential, but I am happy for Glasgow to come a close second. As ever, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), whom I have known for a number of years. It is always interesting to listen to him, and it was good to hear the latest stump speech for his campaign in Dundee next year. My hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) highlighted problems around GP surgeries—again, a failure of the SNP. As I mentioned in my speech, we have seen the same in Kincardine in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) shared an interest in the potential of aviation to create economic growth. I was delighted to hear from the Minister that more will be done on the defence growth deal. I ask her in particular to consider the potential of Fife in those discussions, so that we are providing opportunities for young people around skills, which Fife can provide in defence and related sectors, such as renewable energy and other technical skills. Again, the Scottish Government have not really established their credentials on providing the right technical skills, which people in many of our communities want in order to fulfil their potential. Finally, I was particularly pleased to hear about the meeting that could take place as soon as next week about the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry. I genuinely believe that there is good will to find a solution. It is frustrating that it has taken so long and that previous Governments were unable to get together; that harks back to the need to reset the relationship. We can build solutions, and there should not be barriers. I thank everyone for participating, and thank you again, Sir John. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the impact of the Spending Review 2025 on Scotland.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Government are already moving towards a focus on outcomes for budgeting, and I would like to see more of that. As my constituency contains a large number of former coalfields, I have been working closely with colleagues on the replacement of the shared prosperity fund and how we can ensure that it delivers skills and investment for young people and opportunities in all parts of the United Kingdom. I can assure the Minister that I will be working with local stakeholders in Dunfermline and Dollar to ensure that our area secures a fair share of the funding that has been allocated for the many great projects that stand to deliver real benefits to my constituents. Over the next three years, this Labour Government will provide the Scottish Government with an additional £9.1 billion for Scottish public services. That is the largest settlement in real terms since devolution began, and a historic opportunity for the Scottish Government to invest in the NHS, police, housing and schools—services that are the bedrock of our society, yet are the root cause of much of the correspondence I receive from constituents who are being failed by the current Scottish Government in Holyrood. One year on from a housing emergency being declared, house building is down in Scotland, and 10,000 children remain in temporary accommodation, with no home to call their own. Indeed, as a former Fife councillor, I know that Fife council is still in the unenviable position of knowing that it breaks the law every single day when it comes to housing, because of the salami-slicing of local government budgets by the Scottish Government. That the SNP Scottish Government knowingly preside over such a situation is unfathomable, having taken their eye off multiple balls during their disastrous time in power. I must also express my concern that, no matter how much funding is made available, the Government in Holyrood continue to fall back on a familiar pattern of whingeing and wasting. We have seen this time and again, from the mismanagement of ferry contracts to the establishment of overseas embassies that serve little practical purpose beyond a vanity project and a residence for the Minister to have a very nice time on holidays funded by the public purse. This morning I looked over the caseload in my office, and a third of cases received are from people with problems relating to devolved policy areas. So fed up are the people of Dunfermline and Dollar by the myriad failures of the SNP that they know the best place to come for help is Scottish Labour MPs and a UK Labour Government. This morning, we learned that more Scottish public money will be spent on defending the former chief executive of the SNP in a court case about a caravan found in my constituency. In England, the UK Labour Government have recruited more than 1,500 GPs since 1 October thanks to Government action and the digitisation of the health service in England progressing more quickly. Meanwhile, in this place I have had to raise issues including access for little boys to timely medical help for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a lack of local dentists, and care and support for those with Parkinson’s. I am also aware of the case of Vicki Tocher, a constituent of mine who has been battling for almost a year to get her eight-year-old son, Issac, in front of doctors after he suffered a traumatic brain injury while at school. In Scotland we see delays to national treatment centres. One in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list, there are 50,000 fewer operations than before the pandemic, and a record number have been forced to turn to private healthcare. In February, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said that the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E in Scotland is 99 times higher than it was 14 years ago.