łÉČËżěĘÖ

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 22 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2049 contributions

|

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 27 February 2024

Bob Doris

That is fine. Is the overall tonnage the same? What I got from your exchange—and this is what I want clarity on—is that weight-bearing vehicles and lorries have to be placed strategically and safely on the vessels to make it seaworthy and safe for everyone travelling on them. Has the maximum tonnage that the vessels can take remained the same or has it had to be reduced?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 27 February 2024

Bob Doris

That would make it more palatable to the public purse.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 27 February 2024

Bob Doris

I will make the briefest of comments rather than ask a follow-up question. I am not trying to be awkward about the issue. It appears to me that, under your tutelage, Ferguson and the workforce representatives whom I can see sitting in the public gallery have come through a really difficult period and a quick learning curve in recent years in fixing a lot of errors that predecessors made, and Ferguson is very close to being in robust health. However, for additional taxpayers’ money to go in, we have to be very clear and transparent about what we are getting for our money. It almost seems that Ferguson could be held to a higher standard than otherwise would have been the case because of what has happened previously.

I hope that we get to a position at which appropriate capital investment could be made, we can be clear about the efficiencies that that would give to the yard, and we can retain strategic commercial shipbuilding and the workforce in Scotland. However, we need transparency about what we get for our money.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 27 February 2024

Bob Doris

I have a much more mundane question, coming back to clarification on Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa. I do not know whether other members have questions on this topic.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 27 February 2024

Bob Doris

I am sorry if I get the numbers wrong—the exchange between you and the convener was complicated—but was it always intended that the original design would hold 127 cars and 16 lorries all at the same time? My understanding was that that was not the case.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

MV Glen Sannox (Hull 801) and MV Glen Rosa (Hull 802)

Meeting date: 27 February 2024

Bob Doris

It would be good to hear from the witnesses, convener.

Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 22 February 2024

Bob Doris

First, I welcome the fact that we are in a place, in this Parliament, where there is an obligation and a statutory duty on Government to uprate certain core benefits by inflation. That is a very powerful thing.

It is, however, always reasonable to ask—and we had this debate during the passage of the social security legislation—why some benefits have been picked for statutory obligations to uprate while others are discretionary. I, of course, welcome the fact that the discretionary ones are being uprated by inflation under the draft order, but that might not always be the case. What is the rationale? What is the latest thinking of the Government in relation to that?

Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 22 February 2024

Bob Doris

I am hugely supportive of the Scottish child payment, but my understanding is that, in effect, it is a top-up for families because of the insufficient universal credit levels in the UK. That is how people access the Scottish child payment.

What are the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on the New Economics Foundation’s report of October last year? It said that, even with the UK uprating of universal credit for this year, because of the end of cost of living payments, a lone parent in the UK who has one child will be £350 worse off in April this year than they were in April last year. Surely that is unacceptable. Surely that has to stop.

The current or any future UK Government must surely do what the Scottish Government is doing and uprate benefits properly, rather than give with one hand and take away with another. There is £450 million of Scottish taxpayers’ money—quite rightly, I should point out—going to subsidise the UK universal credit system, which in effect is not fit for purpose.

We do not need reviews of that system; we need fundamental principles that drive our attitude to welfare, and I am pleased to say that that is the case with the Scottish child payment. Has the cabinet secretary made representations to the UK Government about the insufficiency of universal credit? Will she do so consistently, irrespective of which Government is in power?

Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 22 February 2024

Bob Doris

I understand that this is another example of the Scottish Government stepping in to provide support that would otherwise not be available elsewhere in the UK, so I support it.

Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 22 February 2024

Bob Doris

I am interested in the financial realities of some of this. You said in your opening statement that the spend on social welfare provisions in Scotland is £1.1 billion more than what we get in comparable Barnett consequentials from the United Kingdom Government. That is additional spend that we have invested in Scotland due to our priorities. As the gap grows between what we get from Westminster and the additional money that we spend, does it reduce the Scottish Government’s flexibility to do more?