Lorna Slater
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“I am grateful to the minister for highlighting the impact of Green policies such as free bus travel and free school meals. The Scottish Greens have always maintained that progressive public services should be underpinned by sustainable and fair sources of revenue, which is why we have consistently supported changes to Scotland’s income ta…”
“It is also worth stating that the ask in this country is great, but the offer is even greater, with free tuition, free prescriptions, the baby box and the child payment, which the UK Government has followed suit on. There is also free bus travel and free interisland ferry travel for under-22s.”
“It is a matter of urgency that Scotland’s land register be completed so that a comprehensive and publicly accessible online map can be created. I would be very interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s view on the importance of that aspect.”
“If the public purse is stretched, that is the first place that we should look for money. It might involve taxing polluters or using extended producer responsibility schemes such as the deposit return scheme, but in any case it is clear that we can no longer afford to subsidise polluters. The same goes for carbon emissions.”
“In the previous session of Parliament, I was part of the cross-party SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee. I would like to highlight to the cabinet secretary two of the recommendations that resulted from that committee’s work.”
“We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government urgently undertakes a strategic mapping exercise to identify the functions of all Scottish public bodies and where they overlap, to inform decisions on future size, structure, and coherence across the public sector.” Michael Marra: It strikes me that that is precisely what Scottish Labou…”
The complete record
Every one of 468 lines we hold for Lorna Slater, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“It should be relatively difficult to remove duly elected members from office before their time of service is completed, in order to limit the possibility that such removals could be instigated by party politics or by prejudice. We are elected by the public and we are accountable to them. I have concerns that, under the United Kingdom Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which criminalises peaceful protest, members could acquire criminal records and significant jail time for things such as peacefully protesting against nuclear weapons or war, or peacefully protesting for the environment, Palestine or trans rights. This UK law raises the potential for ugly political misuse if members could, for example, get criminal records for peacefully protesting in favour of Scottish independence.”
“Although the Scottish Greens were uncomfortable with the implementation of the bill as drafted at stage 1, we abstained at that point in order to give the member in charge of the bill the opportunity to review and correct some of its problems. However, even with the substantial changes that have been made, we do not feel that the core issues in the drafting have been resolved. The recalling of MSPs is something for which there should be robust and transparent processes that do not discriminate against MSPs who have health conditions, disabilities or caring responsibilities. We note Engender’s repeated and on-going concerns about the impacts that the bill, as written, could have on already underrepresented groups, particularly in relation to privacy.”
“Will the member give way? Sue Webber: Yes, I will give way to Ms Slater. Lorna Slater: Would the member say that that was true even in circumstances where the UK Government has criminalised peaceful protest? Members of this Parliament who are protesting for causes that they support, such as those relating to nuclear weapons or war, or even Scottish independence, could be criminalised for that sort of peaceful protest and therefore lose their seats. Sue Webber: I believe that the law is the law, Ms Slater. Perhaps my black-and-white nature is a little bit uncomfortable for those on the Green benches. I believe that, regardless of the severity of the crime, any MSP who is convicted of an offence should be removed automatically.”
“The United Nations secretary general recently said: “The greatest threat to energy security today is fossil fuels. They leave economies and people at the mercy of price shocks, supply disruptions and geopolitical turmoil”— and that is to say nothing of the increasing risks of climate catastrophe. The workers at Mossmorran deserve to have the just transition plan that the Scottish Government promised, and the rest of us deserve to have a published energy strategy that sets out how the Scottish Government intends to manage the rest of the transition to a net zero future.”
“Uplift continues: “In contrast to the declining oil and gas industry, the net zero sector in the UK, which includes renewable energy, grew by 10 per cent in 2024, three times faster than the overall economy.” The change of direction is clear, and it is time— it is past time—to accept that this transition is under way. It can only be fair and just if we accept the direction of travel and plan for the path ahead. Many in this chamber seem intent on pretending that if we subsidise the sector just a little bit more, it can carry on forever. It cannot. High-emitting industrial sites will need to be converted to other uses, change their operations and upgrade their infrastructure if they are going to continue to operate. We cannot put our heads in the sand and our fingers in our ears and pretend that we can keep going as we are.”
“That decline carried on despite the fact that there was a pro-oil and gas Tory Government at Westminster that continued to hand out licences. New drilling will not stem the long-term decline in jobs. It will do little to strengthen UK energy security and nothing to lower energy costs or ease the cost of living crisis. Uplift adds that “North Sea reserves are owned by oil and gas companies, which sell them to the highest bidder at international market prices.” They are not reserved or sold cheaply specially to the people of the UK just because they come from the North Sea.”
“The UK is “one of the most generous tax jurisdictions for offshore oil and gas production in the world … Today, UK tax reliefs allow companies to write off 84% of their development costs”, but “by the industry’s own admission, new North Sea drilling isn’t considered commercially viable without even bigger tax giveaways and more state support … The UK’s generous tax system has made new drilling profitable for companies, even when oil prices drop, but it means the public is left shouldering most of the downside risks, including the potential for significant net tax losses to the Treasury.” Jobs in the sector have been in a steady decline for more than a decade, and, despite what other members have said, there is no evidence at all that the windfall tax has accelerated that long-term decline. That does not show up in the jobs data.”
“As we move forward with our transition to net zero, we need to recognise that change is coming. If we are to make it a just transition, we need first to accept that a transition is happening. I am grateful to Uplift for the research that I am about to reference. Uplift says: “The maturity and geologically challenging nature of the North Sea means that it is now a high cost basin compared to other oil and gas producing regions, with the reserves that are left increasingly small and technically complex to extract … Only massive state support has kept the UK industry viable”.”
“Daniel Johnson: The member will have heard the evidence that the Economy and Fair Work Committee took on the draft climate change plan. There seems to be a lack of detail in the plan on workforce and wider industrial transition. Does she share my concern that we may be seeing history repeat itself in the lack of planning for the transition? Lorna Slater: Daniel Johnson makes an excellent point. I absolutely agree that planning for the transition is critical, as we know that it is coming. In the case of Mossmorran, there was nothing. Workers and the community were left in the dark as to whether help was on the way to ensure that they would not become another community destroyed by mismanaged industrial decline. We must learn from what has happened here.”
“It was always clear that Mossmorran, as one of Scotland’s largest polluters, would not be able to continue with business as usual as the country progressed on its journey to net zero. It was very clear all along that a site-specific just transition plan for Mossmorran was needed to ensure a sustainable green future for workers and the community. The Scottish Government had said that it would provide one. Now Exxon has cut and run—that is hardly surprising for a global corporation that has only the interests of its shareholders in mind and has no care for the impact that it has on the communities in which it operates or the larger impact that it has on the long-term climate on planet earth. We should have been ready. There should have been a plan, at least in development. Instead, there was nothing.”
“I am grateful to all members who have contributed to the debate. I hear the sadness and frustration that we all share when jobs are lost, particularly when— this is significant in the case of Mossmorran— opportunities were lost to prepare for the change. I absolutely welcome the accelerated funding that the Deputy First Minister has announced to support skills and training for workers who are at risk of redundancy, and the plans that she outlined for the site sound promising, but there is a wide feeling in the Parliament that that should have been done sooner and that we could have been prepared. The Scottish Greens’ Mark Ruskell has been campaigning on the matter for nearly a decade.”
“Will Paul McLennan take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr McLennan is about to conclude. Paul McLennan: I have only four minutes. UK energy policy has resulted in higher costs and fewer jobs. The Scottish Government’s energy strategy must have a just transition at its heart. The key point for me is that we need the powers of independence to ensure that all the powers that we need to support our industries are in the hands of the people of Scotland. 16:36”
“If we pass the bill this evening with no independent right for a young person to withdraw themselves from RO, we are embedding discrimination in law. That might be where we get to, but I hope that we do not, and I urge members to support my amendments in this group. With that, I press amendment 16.”
“They would give ministers the power to introduce regulations giving pupils a right to request withdrawal from RO, but that provision would be weaker, because it would postpone meaningful change to a future point and leave the right dependent on subsequent regulations being brought forward. My preferred amendment 17 would place that right directly in primary legislation right now, providing clarity and certainty now rather than at some unspecified date in the future. Amendment 7A would require the Scottish Government to “lay … a draft … statutory instrument containing the first regulations” as soon as possible after the relevant provision comes into force. Amendment 9 would specify that those “regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.” I come back to the fundamental point.”
“That embeds discrimination in law, creating an imbalance in the protection of children’s article 14 UNCRC rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Children of faith can opt into RO, but children of no faith cannot opt out. My amendment 17 would introduce a right to request withdrawal from RO, strengthening alignment with articles 12 and 14 of the UNCRC as well as with repeated recommendations from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, and with Scotland’s commitment to child-centred decision making. My amendment would incorporate the presumption of capacity and a clear process for schools, ensuring proportionality and legal clarity. Amendments 7, 7A and 9 are weaker.”
“Logically, therefore, we believe that there should be an independent statutory right for children and young people to decide whether or not to participate in religious observance. As we have heard, the bill currently gives young people the right to object when a parent seeks to withdraw them. For example, as my colleague Lorna Slater mentioned, an atheist parent could withdraw a child but the child could override that parental wish and opt back in. However, the bill does not give young people a reciprocal independent right to withdraw themselves in the first place. In not doing so, it affords stronger protection to children who wish to participate in religious observance than it does to those who do not.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I take this opportunity to advise members that we have in fact passed the agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish. I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow debate on the group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. I call Maggie Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 16. Maggie Chapman: The Scottish Greens are very clear: we believe that children and young people have rights. We also believe that having rights without the power to exercise them is meaningless, so we believe that children and young people should have the power to exercise their rights.”
“I do not agree with the suggestion that this would bind future Governments, because the review will allow ministers in future Governments to consider whether legislation or regulations are more appropriate. This does not shut down that avenue. I stress again— Stephen Kerr: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Jenny Gilruth: I would like to make some progress; I am conscious of the time. Any regulations for a pupil’s right to withdraw from religious observance would require significant consultation and engagement, as we have heard. In using that power, it will be important for any Government to ensure that it meets the balance between strengthening children’s rights, which is what the bill is about, and upholding parental rights. I encourage Parliament to agree to amendments 7 and 9 and reject all other amendments in the group.”
“That is the only way in which it would make any sense to me. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, thank you. Jenny Gilruth: Any regulations would, of course, be subject to the affirmative procedure, and I have set out my preference for primary legislation. However, it is also worth reflecting the views of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on the matter. The committee said at stage 1 that ministers should “give further consideration to providing children with an independent right to withdrawal in future legislation.” The Government has listened and responded to that point. I have also mentioned the work that is already under way in relation to the proposed wider review that could provide the evidence base for future legislation in this space.”
“However, if the Government’s clear position is that it should be done through primary legislation, I do not understand why it would accept amendment 7, because it does the opposite. Amendment 7 says: “Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide for pupils to have a right to request withdrawal”. It also mentions consultation. That is no different from what happens with any other secondary piece of legislation in the Parliament—we consult. There is a bit of a contradiction in what the Government is saying. Surely you should stick to your guns. If you think that it should be primary legislation, you should not vote for amendment 7, because it does the opposite: it gives us secondary legislation and it binds a future Government. I do not really understand what the Government’s argument is. Are you just trying to put out an olive branch?”
“It is imperative that we have that data to inform potential future legislative changes so that future ministers, as I have alluded to, will be able to make a much more informed decision. That would be an appropriate time for changes arising from that review to be brought forward through a subsequent bill—for example, as part of any wider reforms of the 1980 act that might come forward. That would ensure that we have that full debate and parliamentary oversight, which would be—to respond to Mr Kerr’s point—my clear preference. Pauline McNeill: I am trying to follow this debate, and I may not have understood it, but if it is the Government’s position that, instead of amendment 7, there should be primary legislation, I agree with that, because I think that, at this late stage, it is wrong to bind a future Government.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Simpson for providing Mr Kerr with some views on his view on this amendment. Of course, my own view is that primary legislation would be more appropriate in this regard. However, the member is correct to say that amendment 7 gives future Governments flexibility by way of a regulation-making power, should future Governments deem that appropriate. 17:30 It is worth putting on the record that any changes that are made by the bill, if it passes today, will have been in place for two to three years on completion of the review that I mentioned and we will have had much more evidence and data surrounding withdrawals from religious observance. The current lack of data on withdrawals was a key feature of some of the debates that I had with the committee at stage 2.”
“That is exactly why amendment 23 contains a requirement for ministers to review the implementation of part 1 within three years. That review will include explicit consideration of whether any future action should be taken on enabling pupils to withdraw from religious observance. Graham Simpson: I agree with Stephen Kerr. I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree that it is clear that amendments 7 and 9 are about introducing regulations and not primary legislation. That is what both amendments say. If Stephen Kerr is uncomfortable with that, he should vote against the amendments. However, they will not introduce a power to bring in primary legislation. They are about regulations. Some of us may be okay with that. If Stephen Kerr is not, he should clearly vote against them.”
“As I mentioned, this will be for a new Government to decide after appropriate consultation, but the bill represents important progress, to my mind, in strengthening children’s rights. This will continue to be an incremental journey, more broadly. Stephen Kerr: I am still not clear about whether amendment 7 will lead to secondary legislation or primary legislation. I think that it was Paul O’Kane—or maybe it was all of us—who said that, if we are going to go down this route, it needs to be considered with the full force of parliamentary scrutiny, and not as a stage 3 amendment to the bill. Jenny Gilruth: That is exactly why, as I set out, the Government does not support amendment 7A. We need wider consultation on the proposed changes that amendment 7 could bind future Governments to.”
“I understand that she is putting an interpretation on its wording and saying that it could lead to primary legislation, but the wording is: “The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide for pupils to have a right to request withdrawal”. What is her interpretation of those words? To me, they mean that ministers may introduce an independent right by secondary legislation, as opposed to introducing legislation after consideration. Jenny Gilruth: It is important to note that I am unable to agree to amendment 7A, which relates to the timescales associated with the implementation of the provision in amendment 7. Amendment 7A would require ministers to lay the regulations “as soon as reasonably practicable”.”
“On that basis, I can agree to amendments 7 and 9, which, as we have heard, seek to grant ministers the power to make regulations to create a right for pupils to request to withdraw from religious observance. That means that future Governments will have the power to use the provisions in the bill to introduce such changes and could also do so through future primary legislation. Crucially, though, that will be for a new Government and a new Parliament to consider. In the light of the committee’s advice, it should be considered very seriously by any incoming Government. Stephen Kerr: The cabinet secretary will recognise that she is taking us in a major policy direction, because that is not what amendment 7 says.”
“Amendments 7 and 9 are consistent with the majority invitation in the committee’s stage 1 report that ministers “give further consideration to providing children with an independent right to withdrawal in future legislation.” The amendments will require appropriate consultation in advance of the laying of regulations, which would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Stephen Kerr: I think that it is important to check that I and others have heard correctly the phrasing that the cabinet secretary has just used. Does she interpret amendment 7 as providing a basis for future primary legislation or a basis for secondary legislation that would create an independent right of withdrawal? Jenny Gilruth: I will come on to that exact point now.”
“However, I am able to support Ms Chapman’s amendments 7 and 9, which seek to provide the Scottish ministers with an affirmative regulation‑making power to create a right for pupils to request withdrawal from religious observance. I have listened carefully to the strong views that many members in the chamber have expressed on a pupil right to withdraw, as well as to the views of stakeholders such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, UNICEF UK, Together and the Humanist Society Scotland. I have also reflected on the views of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee more broadly.”
“Jenny Gilruth: As we have heard, introducing a new independent right for pupils to withdraw from religious observance would be a significant change both in relation to legislation and the purpose of the bill and operationally for schools. The matter was discussed during stage 1, and the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee made it clear that a majority of its members considered it more appropriate to proceed with the approach that is set out in the bill—that is, giving pupils the right to object to parental withdrawal, while maintaining the balance between children’s evolving capacities and parental rights and responsibilities. The bill will do just that: it will ensure that pupils’ views are properly taken into account while preserving the rights and responsibilities of parents.”
“We must be clear that respecting children’s voices does not require diminishing parental responsibility, that balance does not mean displacement and that reform does not require the state to insert itself more deeply in the internal life of the family unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Goodness knows that Parliament has already been through all those issues with other legislation. We can rehearse that, but it is already a matter of fact in law that family life should be a primary consideration for us as lawmakers when we create new legislation. For that reason and all the others that have been made by me and by other speakers, I acknowledge the intention behind amendments 16, 17, 7 and 7A but cannot support them.”
“He is exactly right: accepting amendment 5 increases the complexity of the amendments that we are now discussing. Amendments 7 and 7A raise a further constitutional concern, because they would permit ministers to introduce or extend that independent right by regulation. That is a major policy choice that goes to the heart of the relationship between parent, pupil and the state, and it should not be delegated to secondary legislation, as I think has already been said. If we are to consider that particular change, it must be a matter of primary legislation and Parliament must be fully involved in any recalibration of that balance, with full scrutiny by and full responsibility resting on members.”
“Amendment 17 assumes capacity unless the contrary is shown, but, in Scots law, as I have already said in the debate on previous groups of amendments, 16 is the age that is recognised as the threshold for legal capacity and the age at which young people acquire significant rights and responsibilities. Amendments 16 and 17 are not anchored to that established framework but instead create a broad and uncertain standard that schools will be required to interpret case by case. That is not clarity; it creates ambiguity. Martin Whitfield: The agreement to Mr Kerr’s amendment 5, which requires operators to “act impartially”, will make a difficult situation even more difficult if amendment 17 passes. Stephen Kerr: Mr Whitfield highlights something that I had not even thought of.”
“Creating that independent statutory right for the child means that the school becomes the mediator, and potentially the arbiter, between parent and child on matters of conscience. That is why I intervened on Paul O’Kane in response to Graham Simpson’s intervention. Ultimately, we must be careful of the sacrosanct nature of family life. We are not talking about a minor adjustment today—hence the intricate nature of the debate. This is a structural rebalancing of authority between the family and the state and we should not make that shift lightly. There is also the question of maturity, which we have already addressed previously.”
“The issue is responsibility, and the UN convention recognises not only the voice of the child but the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents to provide direction and guidance. Section 9 of the 1980 act has long reflected that principle and locates the right of withdrawal in the parent, recognising that parents are not advisory participants in their child’s upbringing but are responsible for their child’s upbringing. The bill has already altered that balance by requiring schools to involve pupils formally in the process and, in certain circumstances, to refuse a parental request if a pupil objects. That is a significant shift, and amendments 16 and 17 go even further, not refining the process but changing who decides.”
“In one way or another, we need to respect the rights of parents, and the bill fundamentally fails to do that. This group of amendments asks who ultimately decides on matters of conscience regarding a child’s education. Amendments 16 and 17 would create a free-standing statutory right for a pupil to withdraw from religious observance, independent of their parents, and amendments 7 and 7A would empower ministers to introduce and expand that right by regulation. I will begin with what is not in dispute. I say again that children must and should be heard. The principle of evolving capacity is well understood and no one here believes that young people are incapable of forming serious views. However, that is not the issue that is before us.”
“Stephen Kerr: I do not think that those of us who are speaking against Maggie Chapman’s amendments would contradict the statement that she led her remarks with: children have a right to be listened to and taken seriously. That is not a contentious point of view, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with it. However, I found a number of things that Maggie Chapman said strange. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary in due course, because Maggie Chapman seemed to suggest that the cabinet secretary was minded to accept amendment 7A. I do not see how you can accept amendment 7A without accepting amendment 7— the cabinet secretary is shaking her head, so I get the message on that. Paul O’Kane is right when he focuses on the rights of parents. That has been my concern with the bill from the very beginning.”
“It might be impossible for those young people to remain in that school without the wider conversation and discussion that I have spoken about. Going to the heart of the issue, we would all accept that, in many ways, the whole bill will introduce fundamental change. It would be wrong for an independent opt-out to be introduced by ministerial power without further significant and lengthy debate in the Parliament. The fact that we are still considering the issue at stage 3, without any debate on pre-legislation or the myriad practical and ethical challenges that might come up, shows that it is perhaps wrong for the bill to be taken forward in this way, with so little time for debate and discussion on these amendments. I will leave my remarks there.”
“He makes a fair point, and that is what I was trying to allude to in response to Mr Simpson: we have to have a system in which the views of children and young people are taken into account under the UNCRC, having due regard to parents and to the school. Additionally, we have to be cognisant of unintended consequences in how things might work in practice, particularly in the denominational sector, where, as I have already said, there are not clear distinctions between observance and education. Therefore, children choosing to opt out of religious observance and education without any discussion or parental involvement might, in effect, be opting out of the whole school setting, which was chosen by their parents for the very reason that it is a faith school.”
“Paul O’Kane: I will take Mr Kerr’s intervention if he will just allow me to respond to Mr Simpson’s point. Due to the fundamental complexity in how laws interact and how the UNCRC might interact, there must be a space in which parents and children can be brought together, and, crucially, the school must be involved in that conversation. However, that is a more detailed process than what we are being offered here. Stephen Kerr: The answer to the question in Graham Simpson’s intervention is that you would tell the child to speak to their parents—ultimately, that is what this comes down to. We have to be pragmatic about what respecting family life means. We encourage children and parents to speak to one another. Paul O’Kane: I am always happy to be a conduit for members to have a wider debate, and Mr Kerr has put his view on the record.”
“I do not believe that scoping work has been done on how widely any new rights for children would be used, and how that might affect schools in terms of practice and delivery of education. Graham Simpson: What would Paul O’Kane suggest that we do when a pupil is adamantly an atheist but their parents are not atheists? What would he do in that situation? Paul O’Kane: I presume that Mr Simpson is pointing to a desire for that young person to be able to unilaterally opt out of religious observance or religious education. The point was made at stage 2 that there is a broader discussion to be had about how to ensure that both parents and their children can be included in the discussion about opting out of processes. Stephen Kerr: Will Paul O’Kane take an intervention?”
“That has been reaffirmed in other acts throughout the 25 years of the Scottish Parliament and devolution. These amendments would bring the bill into conflict with fundamental principles that have been established. We need a much wider conversation if we seek to change those fundamental principles and give due regard to the UNCRC in its totality. 17:15 Previously, we had a debate on maturity and capacity, and that started to unpick a lot of very complicated questions. Today’s debate is now running over time, because I am not sure that people quite fully appreciated how complicated the issue can be and how much detail needs to be gone through to take on board the variety of views that exist in this space.”
“The problem is that, if an atheist were to send their child to a Catholic school, under the proposals in the amendments from the Scottish Greens, they would not be able to opt their children out of religious education, which would include religious observance. I go back to the debate that we just had on that. I am simply making the point that, if we are going to have a broader discussion about children’s rights to opt out, we have to give due regard to parents. That has not happened so far in the bill, and I do not think that it is happening through the amendments in this group. I have said already that we must give due regard to the long-established position in Scots law on the right to direct children, as recognised in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and in the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006.”
“I have a question for the member on the rights of a parent who is an atheist, for example, to direct their child’s education. Are you arguing that the child should have a right to opt in to that religious education but not to opt out? What about the rights of atheist parents? Do they not have the same rights as parents of faith? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Paul O’Kane: I am a wee bit confused by Ms Slater’s intervention. Parents would have the right to opt their children out if they were atheists and chose to remove their children from religious education.”
“When we sit down to take a break, it is absolutely magical to see the colourful damselflies zooming about over the ponds and resting on the reeds and grasses. Self-seeding Sitka pose a real danger to Scotland’s rare wildlife and habitats by spreading from commercial tree plantations to sensitive habitats and there is a real question about who should pay to undo the damage that is being done. We have a lot to do to protect northern damselflies and to improve and restore their habitats. I thank the British Dragonfly Society and everyone else who works hard for that beautiful species. 18:15”
“As neither of us is qualified to use a chainsaw, we have to use small hand tools to do so, and we can clear away the smaller trees in that way. That allows us to give space and light back to the damselflies. At the same time, since farmers began putting up fences to keep deer out, we are able to identify and protect the seedlings of native trees such as Scots pine, birch, oak and rowan, which can now regenerate, and we hope one day to have a thriving Caledonian pine forest at the top of the hill. Gordon and I have a competition each year to see who can locate the most tiny baby pine trees among the moss and grasses. He always wins, but I put on record that that is because he wanders off uphill to look for them while I am sawing up trees and dragging them away from the ponds—he is not here to contradict me.”
“In April 2024, I once again had the opportunity to be a species champion, only to find that Christine Grahame had gotten in there and grabbed the golden eagles in my absence. I am delighted to say that I am now the species champion for the endangered northern damselfly, which, in the UK, can be found only in the Highlands, where it is restricted to sedge-fringed lochans, which means small ponds with sedges, reeds and grasses around the edges. For the past two summers, my husband and I have volunteered on the site of special scientific interest for northern damselflies at Tombane farm in Perthshire, where invasive Sitka spruce trees are encroaching on the damselfly ponds. We enthusiastically, if amateurly, have a go at cutting down these trees and dragging them away from the ponds.”
“I can give some more intelligence to the chamber on the golden eagle saga. When I was first elected to the chamber, I moved very quickly in order to become the species champion for the golden eagle, and I was lucky enough to be successful in that regard. In that role, I was also invited to the Moffat eagle festival and even got to be taken to the secret golden eagle release site that Christine Grahame described in her speech, where I was given a behind-the-scenes look at how golden eagle reintroductions work. However, once I was appointed Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, it was felt that I should support all endangered and threatened species, and I had to, as it were, release the eagles.”
“Therefore, there should be a clear instruction to our enterprise agencies to prioritise such businesses, put back together Co-operative Development Scotland and get in-house expertise so that, when any person or small group comes to Business Gateway or one of the enterprise agencies and says, “I want to start a business to do X,” they are given the option to become a co- operative or to adopt a social or other employee- owned business model. That will allow us to lock in the benefits of community wealth building.”
“Community wealth building is about rejoining things by ensuring that everyone has a stake in the economy, so that, when the country does well, every individual also does well and gets what they need from our economy. More work is still needed to transform how we think about co-operatives, social enterprises and other alternative business models. In too many cases, the Scottish Government and its enterprise agencies think about only small and worthy businesses when they think about co-operatives, but there is no reason why co-operatives and employee-owned businesses cannot be enormous, ambitious, competitive, highly productive and very innovative. Enterprise agencies should prioritise such businesses, because we know that the additional benefits that they bring to communities are absolutely worth it.”
“I was really pleased with the stage 2 amendments. Various Opposition members proposed various approaches to improved reporting, metrics and targets. That is so important because, if we are not measuring, how can we judge progress? Community wealth building is not just a warm and fuzzy concept that is nice to have; it is very serious. It is about restructuring the economy and providing transformative change, so that everybody has a stake in how well Scotland is doing. It is about addressing the disconnect that people feel when they see the very wealthy continuing to get richer while they struggle to afford to pay their energy bills or to travel somewhere nice for their kids to experience nature. There is a disconnect when, although people hear that, apparently, the economy is doing well, they do not feel that they are doing well.”