Patricia Ferguson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. In fact, one of my bugbears over the years has been that it is far too easy for cash-strapped local authorities to cut back on sport and culture, because they are not part of the statutory services that everyone expects them to deliver. The Scottish Government need to realise that if they are ambitious for Scotland, they need to be ambitious for Scotland’s people. Part of that means making us all more physically active, and to achieve that we need facilities, so I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I recognise that local residents and businesses in my constituency, particularly those near to Scotstoun stadium, will have concerns about possible disruption, which is often associated with large sporting events. I am pleased that the Glasgow 2026 organising body has been engaging with community councils and local residents to understand such concerns, and to seek to minimise disruption as far as possible. Parking is an issue in the area, so I was pleased to hear that an events permit zone will be in operation, alongside other measures such as defined drop-off and pick-up locations, and the ringfencing of ride-share locations. I am also glad that the organisers have been clear that communications with spectators will provide guidance on local public transport routes and encourage spectators to use them as an alternative to driving to venues. Furthermore, I encourage residents and businesses in Glasgow West to attend the two “Get Set” hubs in the constituency, in the Annexe Healthy Living Centre on 12 June and at the Heart of Scotstoun on 18 June. These hubs, organised by Glasgow 2026, will allow communities to learn about the games and their local impact, and allow people to ask questions or raise concerns. There is so much to welcome about these games that it feels a little churlish to mention some of the areas where I feel that things could have been done a little bit better. Those who know Glasgow will appreciate that George Square is the centre point of our city.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Today marks 43 days until Glasgow hosts the 23rd Commonwealth games. The games will happen from 23 July to 2 August, and the city will welcome about 3,000 athletes from 74 nations and territories across the Commonwealth, who will compete in 10 sports and six para sports. The event offers a fantastic opportunity for Glasgow to host world-class athletes from across the Commonwealth, competing at the highest level, showcasing Scotland on an international stage and providing an exciting cultural and economic opportunity for the city. Glasgow will become only the third city in history to host the games twice, following its success in 2014. This is a source of great pride for our city, but as hon. Members will be aware, Glasgow was not intended to be the host city in 2026. When the Australian state of Victoria withdrew from hosting the games, Glasgow, with support from the UK and Scottish Governments, stepped in to ensure that the games took place, which for a time was in doubt. In doing so, there was recognition that these games must be different. The idea needed to be refreshed to ensure a more sustainable model—reducing cost while continuing to highlight and benefit host cities, give our athletes the chance to compete at the highest level, and inspire people across the Commonwealth to take part in sport or be more physically active. For those of us who live in what we might call the devolved nations, the Commonwealth games are the only opportunity that our athletes have to wear the vest of their nation at a world-class event in sport. The new model for Glasgow 2026 is not funded through the normal methods. The delivery of the games themselves does not really require public funding, but it is welcome that the UK Government have made available £2.3 million as a contingency towards security costs. The Glasgow 2026 “Story of Change” framework provides a way to take a new and innovative approach to the games, focusing on four key areas. First, it seeks to deliver a greener games, demonstrating that major events such as these can reduce waste and carbon emissions. As part of that approach, these games are making use of the legacy of the 2014 games by using four pre-existing venues to host events. We have Tollcross International Swimming Centre, the Scottish Event Campus, the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome and the Glasgow International Arena, and of course Scotstoun Stadium in my constituency of Glasgow West. Secondly, Glasgow 2026 will ensure that the games are inclusive and offer opportunities for participation, representation and engagement. With 47 para sport events, Glasgow 2026 will be the largest integrated para sport programme in Commonwealth games history. Moreover, the first medal of the games will be awarded in para powerlifting, making this the first time that a para sport event has opened the medal tally at a Commonwealth games. Thirdly, Glasgow 2026 is seeking to create a welcoming games in a welcoming city by using the games to bring people across Scotland and the Commonwealth together. This is perfectly evident and noteworthy in the Glasgow 2026 Festival, an exciting 10-week, city-wide initiative, running from 23 July to 9 August. It comprises more than 150 free events, ranging from art exhibitions and cultural events to opportunities to participate in sport and workshops across Glasgow. My constituency will host a number of events: a 3x3 basketball tournament in Mansfield Park in Partick, a five-day children’s summer camp at Drumchapel Tennis Club, a family fun day at the Donald Dewar centre, and a Commonwealth community festival organised by Halo Arts and Victoria Park Community Trust. Finally, in taking on this challenge, Glasgow 2026 Ltd, the organising company established to stage the event in partnership with Commonwealth Sport and Commonwealth Games Scotland, is seeking to demonstrate that a more sustainable model for the games is possible, while still supporting local economies, tourism and community development. Hopefully, the slightly slimmed-down version of the Commonwealth games on offer this year will ensure the continued viability of such a special event, while still providing an exciting and diverse programme of sport. As I have said, Glasgow 2026 is using the legacy of facilities built for Glasgow 2014 and aims to create a series of different legacies this time. The Commonwealth Sport Foundation, which is the official charity partner of the games, has pledged that all funds raised through Glasgow 2026 will be shared equally between funding sport for development initiatives in the Commonwealth and supporting three city partners in Glasgow: Glasgow Children’s Hospital Charity, Scottish Sports Futures, and Team Scotland Youth Trust.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the wonderful things about the Commonwealth is that it reaches out, and the Commonwealth Games Council and Commonwealth Games Federation have always been good at doing that. The games will be important for Carlisle and Glasgow—maybe the answer is to twin our two cities. As one of the closest cities to Carlisle, Glasgow does have something to offer in that regard. It may not always have been the case historically that people in Carlisle have welcomed people from Scotland coming across the border, but we can leave all that in the past, as we look to the future to ensure that we learn lessons and take that forward. Although these games will be slimmed down, they will be vibrant, exciting and motivational, just like all the games before them. I hope that everyone involved—visitors, athletes, spectators, family members, Glaswegians, and people from Carlisle or anywhere else in the country—has a wonderful time in Glasgow. I hope, too, that the model for these games might inspire places like Carlisle to consider taking on games, perhaps in conjunction with other local authorities, because this version is much more affordable and will hopefully ensure that sustainability that we all hope for.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the period of the games, George Square will be fenced off and will be a building site; indeed, it has been for some time now. It is the place where Glaswegians traditionally gather to celebrate events—it was where we celebrated London 2012 and Glasgow 2014—so it is disappointing that it will continue to be fenced off until a few weeks after the games have concluded. It seems to me that, with a little bit of extra thought and planning, visitors to our city could have enjoyed George Square in the way that traditionally we always have done. That is a matter of some regret. My other disappointment is that no terrestrial broadcaster has taken up the opportunity to broadcast the games. They will instead be shown by TNT Sports. As I said, I do not want to dwell on the negatives. Glasgow 2026 will award 215 gold medals. Visitors, athletes and officials will be supported by 3,000 volunteers, who will be called Glasgow Legends. When I was a volunteer in 2014, they were called Clyde-siders; but whatever they are called, they will make new friends, learn new skills and have an exciting time along the way. Credit must go to the organising committee, Commonwealth Games Scotland, Glasgow Life and Glasgow City Council, as well as all the sporting organisations involved in delivering this year’s games. Glasgow 2014 was hugely successful, and Glasgow 2026 will have the distinction of heralding in a new version of the games— slimmed down, yes, but just as vibrant, exciting and motivational as the 2022 games.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. I intervene in my capacity as Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which she and many other hon. Members here today are valued members. As she knows, our Committee has been examining this entire topic as part of a large-scale inquiry into energy and a just transition. One of the areas we have turned our attention to is the question of fairness across the UK as we transition to cleaner energy systems. We have heard evidence from Scotland’s community-owned renewable energy sector that they face a significant number of barriers when it comes to connecting their projects to the grid. They also have some unique challenges created by the differences between the grid in Scotland and the grid in England and Wales. Does the hon. Member agree that we must turn our attention to that area if we are going to enable communities to generate their own electricity and power and be the beneficiaries of that?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Instruments such as this draft order alter Scotland’s devolution settlement and require inter-governmental co-operation: areas that fall squarely within the remit of the Scottish Affairs Committee. For that reason, as members of this Committee will know, the Scottish Affairs Committee has scrutinised the draft order and published a report to aid Parliament’s consideration of the instrument. I should put on record that I am grateful to the Scotland Office for its engagement with us, and that our correspondence is of course published on the Committee’s website. I wish to make it clear that the Committee remains neutral on the issue of assisted dying. Our report does not comment on the substance of that sensitive matter, but it does draw Parliament’s attention to some unusual features of the draft order. Given the relative rarity of section 30 orders, our interest is in the legal and constitutional implications of the order. I will give an overview of those issues in my remarks, but I will first take the opportunity to express my gratitude to my fellow Committee members, some of whom are here today, for their thoughtful consideration of the issues. This statutory instrument would use powers under the Scotland Act to extend, in a narrow and time-limited way, the Scottish Parliament’s law-making powers. It would do that to enable the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill to become law if the Scottish Parliament so decides. During the Bill’s scrutiny stages in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government identified three areas that relate to reserved matters under the Scotland Act. If the UK Parliament does not take legislative action, the Bill as it currently stands would be outside the Scottish Parliament’s competence. The specific way in which those issues are being resolved through this order gives rise to three observations that I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to. The Governments have adopted a two-stage, bifurcated approach to address the three competence issues. The draft section 30 order will only resolve the issues related to the “regulation of medicines and medical devices”. The other two outstanding competence issues, relating to the “regulation of medical professions” and “employment and industrial relations”, are expected to be resolved via a section 104 order. A section 104 order would make consequential provision after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That requires the relevant provisions to be removed from the Bill before it is passed by MSPs. The Scottish Affairs Committee asked the UK Government why they adopted the two-stage approach, rather than addressing all the competence issues in one go. In response, the Government said that their approach would allow the Scottish Parliament to debate “with clarity” how the Bill’s “core” issues will be handled, rather than issues that might arise as a consequence. They also said that section 104 cannot be used to confer powers to make subordinate legislation, which the Bill’s provision on substances and devices for assisted dying would require. That explains why not all issues were dealt with using a section 104 order, but it does not explain why some issues are being dealt with by a section 104 order rather than this section 30 order. Our report highlighted that this approach has implications for effective scrutiny. In particular, it means that while the Scottish Parliament will have clarity over how issues relating to substances and devices will be handled, there will be no such clarity in respect of the other two competence issues. The Scottish Government have already indicated that some provisions will need to be removed from the Bill before the final stage 3 vote. It would not be possible for MSPs to assess the section 104 order, which will be used to fill the legislative gaps, before the Bill is passed. Our report suggested that any uncertainty could be remedied by the UK Government publishing their section 104 order in draft, before the Scottish Parliament’s stage 3 consideration. Given the draft order’s constitutional significance, we also recommended that the instrument should be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than in a Delegated Legislation Committee; I note that that the approach has been taken in the other place. However, Members will know that this recommendation was not adopted by the Government, which is disappointing. On that point, I will take this opportunity to gently highlight to the Minister that it might have been courteous and helpful for the Department to have written to the Scottish Affairs Committee before this Delegated Legislation Committee was scheduled to respond to that specific and time-sensitive recommendation. Our report also casts light on the ongoing role retained by UK Ministers within this draft order. The manner in which the draft order confers powers relating to medicines and devices means that these powers are only nominally transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State will retain the ultimate say over how those powers are used. It is clear that the approach has been agreed by both Governments. However, our report highlighted that it is a novel, though perhaps not unprecedented, approach. The default approach is that, when a matter has been devolved, the Scottish Parliament confers powers on Scottish Ministers, who are then answerable to the Scottish Parliament. However, this section 30 order envisages that some regulations resulting from the Act could be made by a UK Government Minister acting alone. Those regulations would not be subject to scrutiny by MSPs. This approach is unusual, as the Scottish Parliament does not normally confer powers on UK Ministers. Will the Minister clarify in her response how the remaining competence issues will be resolved and what consideration the Government have given to implications for effective scrutiny? Finally, our report draws special attention to the time-limited nature of the draft order. While time limiting a section 30 order is not in itself new, this one is slightly different. The powers that the draft order confers would effectively expire if the current Bill does not complete its final stages before the Scottish Parliament elections this year. When questioned on this approach, the UK Government confirmed that they are willing to devolve competence only in respect to the specific Bill currently under consideration. However, what is less clear is how the time limit would affect subsequent amendments to the primary legislation further down the line—for example, if the Scottish Parliament wish to change the regulation-making powers of the Act. For the benefit of the Committee, I hope that the Minister will outline in her response whether the Scottish Parliament would be able to amend or repeal the Act’s regulation-making powers in a future Scottish parliamentary Session. The draft order has important constitutional implications. It is right that these issues have been properly scrutinised, and I hope that the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report will be useful to the Committee and to the wider House. The Department has responded to the Committee’s report, and that response will be considered by the Committee at our meeting tomorrow. We will make every effort to ensure that the response is published before the House votes on this instrument. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points I have highlighted, particularly regarding the need for clarity on any forthcoming section 104 orders, the novel role for UK Ministers and the implications of the proposed time limit.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  At a time when the Government are promoting a duty of candour to ensure that all public servants, including Ministers, have a legal duty to act with transparency and frankness, and when the Scottish Government have indicated that they hope that that legislation will apply in Scotland too, does the Deputy Prime Minister support calls for the current First Minister, a former First Minister and a former Health Minister to appear before the inquiry into the deaths of adults and children as a result of contaminated water at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, a scandal widely thought to be the worst since devolution began?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the way in which he laid out the debate, and the petitioners for taking the time to give us their views. As we have heard, fireworks can be a source of entertainment and play a very important role in cultural celebrations, but, sadly, for many people and animals they are a source of anxiety, distress and danger. Product safety and the sale of fireworks are consumer safety issues and so reserved to Westminster. Current regulations prohibit the sale of fireworks to the public except during certain periods of the year: Chinese new year, Diwali, bonfire night and new year. However, the easing of restrictions, while intended to allow the marking of significant cultural celebrations, creates extended periods when private backyard or back-garden displays can occur sporadically with no prior warning. The extended easing of restrictions over bonfire night has been highlighted by veterans charities as a particular point of concern. The bright flashes of light, loud bangs and smell of smoke lingering in the air can trigger PTSD in veterans. Moreover, that period of sale coincides with the period during which we remember those who have fallen in war and compounds the distress already associated with that time. The unpredictability of backyard displays also places an unnecessary burden on vulnerable groups in our society and on pet owners, preventing them from planning ahead and putting precautions and coping strategies in place to limit the distress. In Scotland, when and where fireworks can be discharged is a devolved issue. As we have heard, some measures have been introduced to further restrict their use. In response to the antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks, the Scottish Government’s Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 provides local authorities with the power to designate firework control zones. In Glasgow, three such zones were implemented last year between 1 November and 10 November, although, frustratingly, the bid for a zone in my constituency was rejected by Glasgow city council. Residents living within those zones have reported a calmer environment, a quieter evening and a better experience, but Glasgow as a whole still recorded the highest number of firework-related calls to the police in Scotland—in fact, double the second-highest reported number, which was in Edinburgh. Sound does not observe boundaries and does not understand the limitations of zones, and residents living in control zones noted that firework-related noise continued to be an issue, so there is a question of how to police such areas. To tackle noise and antisocial behaviour effectively, the implementation of a city-wide control zone would have made more sense, but the current legislation does not allow that, which seems to me a real problem. The Scottish Government’s 2022 Act also legislated for the establishment and implementation of a new licensing scheme, which would require members of the public to obtain a licence before being allowed to purchase, possess or use fireworks. However, at the end of last year the First Minister announced that the implementation of the scheme would be paused due to its complexity, which I understand, and the cost of introducing it.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend. I was just saying that as well as its complexity, which I understand, another reason for not introducing licensing in the way that the Scottish Government originally wanted to was the cost, which seems particularly ironic given that they have had a record devolution settlement for the second year running. I understand his point, and his constituency neighbours mine. In previous years—fortunately not for some time now—we had instances in my constituency of thugs, frankly, using scaffolding poles to fire fireworks at the police, who ended up having to bring in the riot squad to deal with it. That kind of behaviour cannot be allowed, and any action that is taken must show understanding that not everyone is a good actor. Apart from anything else, I do not actually think the Scottish Government’s licensing scheme would work. We need measures that are easily understood and easily enforceable. As we have heard, silent or much quieter fireworks and organised displays seem to be the way forward. If we do not listen to what people are telling us, we will continue to perpetuate an environment that detrimentally affects animal welfare and the welfare of vulnerable groups in our society. This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I hope that we will all resolve, and the Minister will agree, that we should not be back here having it again next year.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for this debate on the Government’s response to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report on the pilot safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow, known as the Thistle. The Committee began this inquiry in January 2025, amid ongoing concern that Scotland faces the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. In 2024, 1,017 deaths were recorded, alongside harms including blood-borne viruses and injection wounds. Preliminary figures for 2025 suggest that those numbers are increasing. There is a suspected 8% increase in drug deaths in the first nine months of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. Those deaths and drug-related harms are very much concentrated in Glasgow, although not exclusively so. To address that, Glasgow City Council Health and Social Care Partnership and other partners launched the Thistle. The Thistle is located on Hunter Street in Glasgow’s east end, and it is the first sanctioned UK safer drug consumption room. In its first 10 months, the Thistle has had 522 unique visitors and has supervised over 6,000 injecting episodes. During this time there were 78 medical emergencies on site. Now, that might sound like a bad thing, but this means that there have been 78 instances where people have received professional medical intervention, which they might not otherwise have received. This medical intervention treats overdoses and potentially saves lives. There have been no fatalities at the Thistle in the year since it opened. Our Committee heard that, as a single service, the impact of the Thistle is expected to be highly localised. It is unlikely to shift the dial on national drug death figures, and it is not designed to do so. The question of cost was an ongoing theme throughout the inquiry. The Thistle is being funded by the Scottish Government, and up to £2.3 million per year has been committed for the duration of the three-year pilot. The Thistle is undoubtedly expensive to run. However, evidence suggests that facilities such as the Thistle can provide value for money by generating savings elsewhere in the health service. Such facilities can reduce costs associated with public injecting, including the costs of hospital admissions, ambulance call-outs and treating blood-borne viruses. Preventing just six to eight cases of HIV annually could potentially generate savings equivalent to the annual cost of the Thistle. It is right that the Thistle’s costs were properly considered in the Committee’s inquiry because it is a gold-standard model. That means that the value-for-money and harm-reduction capability of a less sophisticated model remains untested. However, with over 1,000 deaths in 2024 alone, the Committee is clear that the scale of Scotland’s emergency necessitates a commensurate response and significant investment. The report also emphasises how vital a drug checking licence would be in combating drug-related harm. We explained how such a licence would allow support services to better understand drug trends across Glasgow, and to take action in relation to them. That could be key in ensuring that the Thistle achieves maximum effectiveness. We recommended that the Home Office urgently complete its assessment of Glasgow’s application for a drug checking licence at the Thistle, and I was very pleased to see that the application was approved in October last year. With this licence, Glasgow will become the first city in Scotland where people can legally test drugs for dangerous contaminants. We know that applications for further drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen and Dundee have also been submitted to the Home Office, and we await the outcome of those applications. I will now make some remarks about the impact of the Thistle on the local community, which has quite rightly been the subject of much media reporting. I highlight how our report emphasises the importance of supporting the community surrounding the Thistle. The concerns of the local community must be taken seriously, which is why our report recommended proactive engagement through the community forum and the development of a responsive communication strategy. Amid the media commentary, we should also bear in mind that it may take time for the local effects of the Thistle to be fully understood. We are reassured that the ongoing independent evaluation is monitoring the levels of discarded paraphernalia, and the pilot’s wider impact on the community. That is vital, and it will ensure that debate about local impacts is informed by accurate, objective data. In November last year we published the Government’s response to our report. There is some positive messaging in the response, which we welcome, and the Government have said that they are firmly committed to tackling drug-related harms and to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government. The response also noted “the importance of evidence-based and high-quality treatment, which engages vulnerable people who use drugs.” Both those points very much align with the spirit of our report. When it comes to the Thistle itself, however, I must express some disappointment at the substance of the Government’s response. It states that the Government will “welcome any evidence” emerging from the evaluation of the Thistle. However, it also states that the Government have “no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971” to permit the operation of such facilities anywhere in the UK. It is difficult to see how full and proper consideration can be given to the Thistle’s evaluation unless the Government are at least open-minded to considering legal changes. As our report says, “Any intervention found to be effective at saving lives and reducing harm should not be dismissed.” Experts and evidence, rather than preconceived ideas, should determine the facility’s future. I directly asked the Prime Minister about this issue during a public session of the Liaison Committee in December. Given the scale of Scotland’s drug crisis, I asked whether he would reconsider the Government’s opposition to amending the law if the Thistle’s evaluation shows it to be effective. He said that the Government had looked at it but does not intend to do so. He also said that legal decisions pertaining to the Thistle are best taken by those in Scotland, and that this should not lead to a UK-wide changing of drugs law. Unfortunately, that response appears not to recognise that drugs law is reserved. In her response to this debate, I hope the Minister will help us to understand how the Government can welcome evidence while remaining closed as to what that evidence might say. Since the publication of our report, the issues we raised have only become more prescient. Interest has developed in additional safer drug consumption facilities elsewhere in Scotland. In Edinburgh, a feasibility study for a similar facility was undertaken in late 2024. That work confirmed strong local need for a facility, and identified two potential sites in the city. Then, in September 2025, the Edinburgh integration joint board announced plans to launch a formal public consultation early this year as part of developing a business case for a facility. The Lord Advocate’s current statement of prosecution policy, however, would not cover any other sites. It is specifically worded in such a way that it covers the Thistle facility and nowhere else. That prosecutorial statement indicates that it is not in the public interest to prosecute people at the Thistle. Our report concludes that relying on separate prosecution policies for multiple facilities is undesirable. If there are to be other safer drug consumption facilities beyond Glasgow, it is even more important that the UK Government address the issues highlighted in our report by establishing a clear legal basis that applies across Scotland. That would require legislation by the UK Government and Parliament. The issues covered in our report are more relevant now than ever, because drug consumption trends in Scotland are changing rapidly. Inhalation is becoming much more prevalent. We highlight the expert medical advice from Dr Saket Priyadarshi and others that shows that inhalation is a safer method of consumption than injection. Introducing an inhalation space could expand the reach of the Thistle by attracting those who smoke and inhale drugs rather than inject them. Dr Priyadarshi describes how it would reduce the appalling physical harm caused by injecting at wound sites. The Thistle does not currently have inhalation facilities. Such facilities would be prohibited under both reserved and devolved legislation, most notably Scotland’s smoking ban. Our report makes it clear that, for the Thistle to be effective, it must be able to meet the needs of the population it is trying to help. An inhalation room could therefore be key to maximising the Thistle’s effectiveness, and a fair evaluation of the facility’s full potential efficacy could be inhibited without one. Since the publication of our report, the Glasgow City integration joint board has announced plans potentially to provide an inhalation space within the Thistle. The board has approved plans to develop a full business case to explore it, and our report calls for any application to enable an inhalation space to be considered by the UK Government on its merits. In response to our report, the Government said that it “does not support” enabling inhalation. The Government suggest that it would be for the Lord Advocate, rather than the UK Government, to grant an exemption to reserved legislation. I hope the Minister might reflect on the logic that granting exemptions to reserved legislation is best done by the Lord Advocate through prosecutorial discretion rather than by the UK Government, who retain responsibility for drugs law. I have one further point. The Thistle is already operating, and it may evolve to provide more services in future. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly likely that similar facilities may be established elsewhere in Scotland. All of that is happening whether the UK Government approve or not. To a certain extent, that reflects the proper operation of devolution and Scotland’s separate legal system, which enables Scotland to take a different path from the rest of the UK. However, as our report sets out, it would be undesirable for the Thistle or any other future facility to operate, potentially indefinitely, under the Lord Advocate’s prosecutorial discretion. The UK Government should recognise these realities, and if the Thistle is deemed a success, they should work with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a full, sustainable legal framework for such facilities. If they do not do so, the Government would be permitting the current unstable legal position to persist. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and the Minister.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that response. It is clear that, across this room, we all share the goal of tackling the harms caused by problem drug use. However, in the face of the crisis that we have talked about today, I do not think we can afford to dismiss any potential remedy, so I take this opportunity to once again encourage the Government to follow the evidence. As we have heard, there will be an evaluation of the Thistle published in three years’ time, but some interim work is likely to be done before then. As part of our inquiry, the Committee also visited drug consumption rooms in Oslo, Bergen and Lisbon—those in Oslo have been going for more than 20 years. Around the world, there is a lot of hard evidence demonstrating that these facilities have a part to play not only in eradicating drug use, but in controlling the way in which drugs are used. Drug consumption rooms are not the only intervention available to us, nor should they be. They are complementary to and should work in tandem with vital recovery services, as well as other harm reduction interventions. Our Committee has been clear that these facilities are just one tool available to address problem drug use—and that is what they are about: problem drug use. With Scotland continuing to record the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe, our response has to match the scale of that crisis. I am very grateful to Members from around the House for their contributions this afternoon. I thank my friend and co-Committee member, whose constituency I cannot remember—the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan)—for his contribution this afternoon. Both he and his SNP predecessor on the Committee, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), played a very constructive part in bringing together our report. I am sure that he, like me, was very impressed by the mobile facilities that we saw when we visited Lisbon. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), whose constituency name is much easier for me to remember, is obviously a great champion for his community. He is absolutely right that the views of the community must be heard, but the community also need more regular feedback about what is being done to address their concerns. That is one of the things we highlighted in our report, and I want to highlight it again today. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) was absolutely correct that we need a package of measures and that our approach needs to be evidence-based. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his contribution. He is right that this is not simple, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that in the time the Thistle has been open, 78 overdoses have been dealt with on the premises. If they had not taken place in the Thistle, those overdoses would likely have taken place on the street or in those people’s homes, where they would likely have been alone, and might have resulted in increased deaths. One thing we know from the evidence is that there has never been a death from an overdose in a safer drug consumption facility anywhere in the world, and that history now goes back over 20 years. We must remember that and have it at the forefront of our minds when discussing this problem. Thank you for your steady chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all hon. Members for their time and thoughtful contributions on this important issue; I hope they will keep an open mind. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that naloxone is widely used in Scotland by paramedics and the police. As a councillor on Glasgow city council, I had the opportunity to be trained in its use, and I have a vial of it that I can carry around—fortunately, I have never had to use it. However, I wanted to make the point to the hon. Member that the main driver for considering a safer drug consumption room in Glasgow was the fact that, in 2015, we had one of the biggest outbreaks of HIV infections ever seen in Europe. That was tracked back to the sharing of needles and the fact that people were injecting. That is what sparked the whole discussion about whether Glasgow needed a safer drug consumption room. So this is not just about the criminality or treating those who are already addicted; it is about preventing those blood-borne viruses, which are so harmful to people in their individual lives, but which also have such a devastating effect on our health services. It is about more than just misusing drugs; it is about a whole-society approach.

• 11 Dec 2025 · St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  There is something that has always perplexed me about the arguments around Brexit. I remember campaigning very hard to try to stop the UK leaving the European Union, but I do not remember seeing many SNP members out campaigning. Records show that the SNP spent less money campaigning against Brexit than on a local authority by-election. I have always wondered why that was; perhaps the hon. Member can tell us.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this year, I held a child poverty taskforce event in my constituency. All the organisations that took part identified inconsistent funding as a barrier to their work. I warmly welcome the child poverty strategy, but it is ironic that almost at the same time as it was announced, the SNP-controlled city council announced funding cuts to a number of organisations across Glasgow West. Given the record settlement from this Government to the SNP Government at Holyrood, does the Leader of the House agree that vital community organisations such as The Annexe, Drumchapel LIFE and Kingsway Community Connections—to mention just a small percentage—deserve stable funding to allow them to continue their good work, and that local authorities in Scotland have been underfunded for far too long?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am not in favour of voting remotely either, except perhaps in very rare and exceptional circumstances. However, please believe me that electronic voting is the way forward. Members would not have to spend some 20 minutes walking through the Lobby. Votes would be cast, and a result declared, within roughly one minute. That is definitely a better use of Members’ time, and a much more efficient way to do things.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I nearly lapsed into old habits and called you Deputy Presiding Officer, but that is a title for another place some 500 miles up the road. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for procuring this debate, and for arriving when he did; some of us were becoming rather anxious. I do not think I have ever been more pleased to see him enter any room. On a more serious note, 25 years ago this month, Donald Dewar—MP, MSP and the first First Minister of Scotland—died prematurely. Donald had worked hard, both in our party and beyond, to promote the idea of a Scottish Parliament. It was a huge loss when he passed away only 17 months into the life of that new Parliament, but his legacy—the Parliament he played such an important part in establishing—lives on. Despite the disappointment of the 1979 referendum, devolution remained firmly on the agenda of the Labour party through the long years of Conservative rule. The idea was kept alive by Donald, his great friend John Smith, Labour party and trade union members across the country, and colleagues in the Liberal Democrats and some other parties. “A Claim of Right for Scotland” in 1988 and the Scottish constitutional convention were significant markers on the long road to the successful 1997 referendum. I am pleased to recount that when Labour was returned to power in 1997, one of its first acts was to pass the Scotland Act, which paved the way for the Scottish Parliament just two years later. It is quite remarkable that a party was returned to power in May 1997, held a referendum just two or three months later on the Scottish Parliament and whether we should have devolution, and delivered that Parliament within two years. I was proud to campaign, along with many others, for a Scottish Parliament over many years. I believe that such subsidiarity is sensible and is a democratic imperative, and as one of the first MSPs elected in 1999—alongside my colleague, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—I was privileged to see at first hand the challenges and successes of the Labour-Liberal Executive, which steered our country through the first years of devolution. We did not call ourselves a Government then; “Executive” was good enough for us. As my colleague said, it is my conviction that co-operation between the coalition partners, and sometimes across all parties, was key to the progress of devolution, as was joint working between the Scottish and UK Governments. Many positive initiatives were implemented during that early period, some of which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. I apologise to the House if I repeat one or two, but I would like to list some of the ones that come most easily to mind. They included free personal care for the elderly; free university tuition; the banning of smoking in enclosed public places, which has led to verifiable health benefits—Scotland led the way for the rest of the UK on this issue, and we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ban this year—the repeal of the discriminatory clause 2A; bringing the Golden Jubilee hospital into the NHS; the Fresh Talent initiative; the creation of an international development fund; the creation of the National Theatre of Scotland; and submitting a successful bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games, to name but a very few. The Scottish Parliament’s approach was modern, with family-friendly hours and a willingness to use technology to the advantage of Members and the public. Our electronic voting system and the public petitions process were seen—I think rightly—as efficient, businesslike and inclusive. I sincerely hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider those examples during its investigation—especially electronic voting, please.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have to realise that the Parliament in Scotland is very much smaller than this Parliament, which makes a great difference to many of the ways in which it operates. As we heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, it is much easier to speak to a Minister there than it is here. It is a regular occurrence. There is a saying in the Scottish Parliament: you only have to sit in the Garden Lobby for half an hour, and every other parliamentarian will have passed you by at one point or another. That is a huge advantage, and it is one of the aspects of the Scottish Parliament that I personally preferred: we did have that access, not just to Ministers but to other colleagues across parties, and we could develop relationships that enabled us to work in a cross-party way very easily with them. That, I think, was a great thing. I also think that the Scottish Parliament has, perhaps, a better balance of power between Members and the Government, but we have to accept that the scale is an influencing factor at the very least. I would not suggest for a moment that the years from 2007 onwards—when the SNP first formed a Government through a deal with the Tories, when they then formed a majority Government, and even when they were in coalition with the Greens—have been a complete failure, but there has been a great deal of wasted time and opportunity.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour party did not vote with the SNP on the Budget. The SNP needed the Tories to get Budgets through, and that was the basis on which they did a deal. Sadly, those Budgets very much reflected Tory values, and that is why Labour could not vote for them; nor could friends in other parties that are represented in this Chamber. I have to say, though, that time has been wasted by people obsessing about the constitution and creating grievances with Westminster. We could have been in a very different place if the Scottish Government had continued to focus on the issues that mattered to people in their everyday lives, and also if they had been more constructive in their engagement with Members of the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross cited the ill-fated deposit return scheme as an example of when there was not that cross-party working to make legislation appropriate and fit for purpose; I would cite as another example the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, which was passed in 2012 only to be repealed in 2018. Again, I would not suggest for a minute that Scotland does not sometimes have a problem with football matches, and with some of the sectarian and offensive behaviour that goes on in connection with them, but that Act was badly thought out. People tried to say so at the time, but they were not listened to. I think it is always important for us to listen to one another and hear what others have to say. Sadly, it has to be said that recent Scottish Governments have been found wanting when it comes to the measurements of success that they have set for themselves on NHS waiting time guarantees, climate targets or educational attainment, and the premise of the Parliament —allowing for the delivery of Scottish solutions to Scottish problems—has fallen some way short. For a Parliament that is devolved, it has had the most centralising agenda in recent years, which has not been to Scotland’s advantage. Scotland is made up of peoples, cities, towns and villages, and what works in my constituency of Glasgow West will not necessarily work in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. It is important that those differences are reflected, and that the agencies and public organisations that support and serve our populations reflect local bias, local need and local interest. Sadly, that is no longer the case in some places. As the Scottish Parliament progresses into its second quarter-century, we have an opportunity to look back, to mark both the successes and the shortcomings, and to recall the words of Donald Dewar at the Parliament’s opening on 1 July 1999, which are as relevant today as they were then. He said that we will “never lose sight of what brought us here—the striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal.” In recalling those words, we should look forward to the future, to how the Scottish Parliament can do right by the people of Scotland, and to how we Members of this Parliament can play a constructive part in making that so.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is undoubtedly true that we have to learn from one another, and from international examples too. If I can give one example that I would like colleagues to learn from, it is that electronic voting has a place, and a place from which I think this House could benefit greatly.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to tell the hon. Member that unfortunately that request has been rejected by the Art Committee. I am not sure that I will necessarily take that lying down, as he would imagine, but it has been rejected as things stand, and I thought it important for him to know that.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  My recollection of the system is that it worked very well indeed. I do not know whether standards have slipped since the days when I and other hon. Members present were Members of the Scottish Parliament. What the hon. Lady describes did happen—I admit that—but very rarely. I was for some time in the Chair, announcing those decisions, and I genuinely do not remember that happening very often at all.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that it is only because BAE Systems won the contract with Norway that it is able to give work to Ferguson Marine, which is owned by the Scottish Government, to keep it going? At the time, the Scottish Government were saying, “We will not have anything to do with defence procurement.” The irony of that is appalling, given that people’s jobs are at stake.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is very interesting to hear my hon. Friend outline so succinctly how Scotland could be better served if the UK Labour Government’s policies were copied elsewhere. I believe that symbols can sometimes be very important, so does she agree that the fact that there are more Labour Scottish Ministers sitting on the Front Bench than there are SNP Members attending this debate says a lot about people’s priorities, and about the priorities of this Government compared with those of the SNP?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Before I give way, may I just say that I really did not imagine that that one line would create such a response?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We did not look closely into that issue; if someone is going to inject drugs, they will buy them and take them almost immediately, so the reach of the Thistle will never be much further than the localised community around the building. For that reason, we have not looked at the issue in the way that he suggests. It will be interesting to see from the evaluation whether there has been more of a reach than was imagined at the beginning, when the facility was being scoped. But that is certainly not the experience that people have had until now.