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 4 of 10.
“The bill does only two things: it makes Government ministers of the day provide a statement about community wealth building and it forces local authorities and other named public bodies to get around the table and do likewise for their regions. The bill does not do anything about compulsory sales orders or compulsory purchase orders. It does not do anything to complete the land register. It does not do anything in relation to the common land and assets registers. It does not do anything in relation to procurement reform directly, although, indirectly, thanks to some amendments from Daniel Johnson, it requires the Government to consider that issue. Therefore, there is unfinished business. The bill is just the start. We can say what we intend the bill to do, but we now have to do the work to make that happen.”
“For the first time since I became an MSP, my husband came to me and said, “Is this thing on TikTok about you?” He was referring to a video from someone outside Scotland, who had identified our bill as being a groundbreaking world first. Likewise, a former colleague who currently works for the Belgian Government in Brussels contacted me and said, “Community wealth building. Is that you? Are you involved in that? It looks very exciting.” That was a really interesting perspective, given how underwhelmed members of the Economy and Fair Work Committee were when the bill was brought to us. It is interesting that we appear to be at the start of doing something intentional that is thought to be remarkable by other people, even though, as I said, committee members were not overwhelmed with excitement when we first saw the bill.”
“Finally, I cannot support the amendment in Murdo Fraser’s name, which suggests that the interests of the generic term “businesses” should be considered on an equal footing with “the community” and “social enterprises” in a community wealth building bill. The amendment would make a substantial change to my amendment to the bill that was agreed to at stage 2, which was all about ensuring community engagement. Mr Fraser’s amendment would allow that to be hijacked by local business interests and would do much to undermine the intention of the bill, and I ask members not to support it.”
“I am unable to support Richard Leonard’s amendments 2 and 6, because I do not think that it is appropriate for the Government to try to influence commercial lending, as the amendments propose to do. I think that Scotland’s enterprise agencies should improve their support for co- operatives and other democratic and employee- owned business models, and that more should be done to support mutual banks and credit unions, and I would have supported any amendment that was framed in that way. I am happy to support Paul Sweeney’s amendment 13, which would include co-operative finance organisations. I find that Richard Leonard’s amendment 1 is too prescriptive. I would support increasing in- sourcing, but I cannot accept that it is always, and in every case, the best option.”
“The problem with the phrasing in the bill, which refers to “promoting access to investment opportunities that provide a benefit to the community and to local businesses” is that external or foreign investment in local assets would meet that criteria if it created jobs or facilitated the building of infrastructure. Neither of those is a bad thing, but that is absolutely not what community wealth building is about. 14:30 Community wealth building is about the community and local people owning and benefiting from the assets. It is absolutely necessary for community wealth building projects to access “funding and finance”, however, and I think that the distinction is important. I ask members, therefore, to support my amendments, so as not to inadvertently undermine the purpose and intention of the bill.”
“My amendments 14 and 18 would replace the word “investment” with the words “funding and finance”. The line that is affected, which reads “promoting access to investment opportunities that provide a benefit to the community and to local businesses”, was added by the Scottish Government as a late stage 2 amendment. It was not made completely clear to me why that was added. It did not come from any of the evidence that we took at the Economy and Fair Work Committee, although many questions were raised about funding for community wealth building and access to finance.”
“Willie Rennie: To help Lorna Slater, let me ask her: would she put taxes on hospitality up or down? Lorna Slater: I support Willie Rennie’s earlier proposal for “radical reform” on non-domestic rates. Those are political choices. We could tax the wealthiest, support the little guy and balance the playing field between massive multinational corporations and small businesses. I have said it before: the regular revaluations are a feature of our rates system, not a bug. It is a system of roughly proportional taxation: ratepayers pay rates on the basis of the value of their premises, so accurate valuation is really important. We just have to look at the mess that our council tax system is in to see the distortions that are created by the failure to undertake regular revaluations. Having everyone pay taxes on—”
“As you know, I give a lot of latitude to members in relation to what they say, but I am looking at the motion and the amendments, and we are really supposed to be talking about the hospitality sector and the forthcoming non-domestic rates revaluation. Could you please address your remarks to that? Lorna Slater: I absolutely think that our non- domestic rates system needs to be changed. For example, if we put a new band in place for properties worth over £1 million, that would raise a lot of money. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members! Lorna Slater: It would apply, for example, to Amazon distribution centres and massive, super- profitable supermarkets. We could be using that money to offer more relief to small hospitality businesses.”
“If we want Scandinavian levels of public services in Scotland—which, judging from all the questions from various parties across chamber, we do—we must be aware that we need to raise Scandinavian levels of taxes. I would not be the first to argue that the limited taxation powers that we have in Scotland do not allow us to raise taxes as fairly as I would want. The UK reserves powers to tax wealth, carbon emissions, luxuries, air travel, inheritances and capital gains. Willie Rennie: Will the member give way? Lorna Slater: Let me finish my point. That is one of the reasons why I support Scottish independence. However, I would also argue that we do not do enough with the tax powers that we have, and that— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Slater, please resume your seat.”
“The Child Poverty Action Group has said that, in its first two years, 2017 and 2018, the two- child cap pushed an additional 300,000 children into poverty—which I think makes the Tories the only party represented in the chamber that is campaigning to increase child poverty in the coming election campaign. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Slater, we are dealing with a debate about hospitality and rates issues. Lorna Slater: Understood. The Deputy Presiding Officer: If we could get back to that, it would be very helpful. Lorna Slater: If we want properly funded public services in Scotland, we need to raise those funds, and we do that through taxation.”
“It is less than a month since we had pretty much the exact same debate in the chamber, and I did not expect that we would hear anything new today that we had not heard several times before, so I am delighted to hear Willie Rennie call for “radical reform”. That is absolutely something that the Scottish Greens could applaud. The Tories would like to believe that lower taxes will magically create growth, conveniently forgetting that suddenly threatening to lower taxes, as Liz Truss did, panicked the markets, tanked the pound and drove up mortgage costs—so, oops! Perhaps that was just because her tax cuts were unfunded. Just last week, at First Minister’s question time, Russell Findlay proposed that the way to pay for tax cuts was to reinstate the two-child cap on benefits.”
“The Presiding Officer: I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 63 and other amendments in the group.”
“Amendment 23 reflects the fact that Scotland has already signed up to a number of international commitments that aim to tackle the biodiversity crisis, including the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. It is therefore entirely appropriate that those commitments are referenced as key purposes for our domestic nature targets. Amendment 23 would add supporting and measuring progress on implementing the convention as a purpose of those targets, alongside our domestic biodiversity strategy and duty. The aim is to help to align our domestic priorities with our prior international commitments and to ensure that we are taking the right actions to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and to substantially restore nature by 2045. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 23.”
“I look forward to asking questions about that at stage 2. The Scottish Greens intend to support the bill at stage 1, but we expect the Scottish Government to move quickly in providing guidance and further legislation in this space to address the broader risks that digital assets present. 16:16”
“I also recognise that “digital assets” is a very broad category of what this bill allows us to legally consider as “things” that can have positive and constructive impacts on our society. I am sure that my colleagues share my distress at, for example, the energy-intensive nature of bitcoin mining. At a time when we are racing to electrify our industry and transport to try to keep ahead of a collapsing climate, it is horrifying that a great deal of energy is being used to generate speculative assets that can be used to avoid taxation, bypass legislative safeguards and otherwise undermine the reliable and transparent operation of our economy. It would be useful to understand from the Scottish Government what devolved powers, if any, it has in this space to bring in regulations and to diverge from the rest of the UK.”
“Digital assets are evolving rapidly, and our legislative response will need to be sufficiently dynamic to manage the risks arising from the increased use and legitimacy of digital assets, such as blockchain-based currencies. I believe that such currencies, if unregulated, present significant risks to individual investors and to the structure of our banking system, and that robust regulation will be required to mitigate those risks. The Scottish Government, like other Governments around the world, will need to be informed and proactive to keep ahead of those risks. They are too great and too closely linked with fundamental elements of our economy for us to wait for a crisis to happen before regulations are brought in.”
“As colleagues have mentioned, that is necessary because of the lack of a body of case law in Scotland to cover the matter. The bill responds to recommendations from the expert reference group on digital assets in Scots private law and from others. Their work has highlighted the gaps, risks and practical challenges that arise in attempting to categorise digital assets within our long-standing legal framework. The bill draws directly on several of the expert group’s recommendations, especially with regard to defining digital assets and clarifying the principles of ownership and control, and their expertise has shaped much of the bill’s structure and rationale. The bill seeks to be technology neutral and future proof, establishing a legal baseline that will then need to have frameworks of regulation and guidance built on top of it.”
“The Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill is a narrow bill that will define the existence of digital assets in Scots law. It is clearly needed. Like it or not, digital assets, from cryptocurrencies to tokenised records, are now part of how some individuals and businesses operate. However, until now, their status in Scots private law has remained uncertain. The bill clarifies that digital assets are capable of being treated as property within our legal framework and of being owned. By establishing clear definitions, including the requirement that digital assets be rivalrous and capable of being recorded immutably within an electronic system, the bill attempts to provide a foundation for legal certainty and investor confidence.”
“Those courageous people put their lives on the line for the safety of our homes and the wellbeing of our communities. They do an extraordinary job and they need the resources to match the challenges that they face, such as long and exhausting shifts, contamination from fires, road accidents and, of course, more wildfires. This is not just about the bricks and mortar of the Marionville fire station building; it is about lives. It is about ensuring that when the worst happens, help arrives quickly and effectively. Let us work together to protect our fire service and the people who depend on it. 13:20”
“We need to ensure that crews are based where they can respond quickly to such incidents, as delays in response times can dramatically increase risk to people, property and the firefighters themselves. I share the concerns about increases in response times, the withdrawal of appliances and the loss of jobs. Any reassessment of resources must be done collaboratively with the firefighters themselves, the Fire Brigades Union and the communities affected. The Scottish Greens will continue to push for fair work principles and decontamination systems, ensuring that those who protect us are well supported, well compensated and safe in their work. Every station should have the staffing, training and equipment that it needs to keep our communities safe. The Scottish Greens stand with our firefighters.”
“They worry that removing such critical resource from the heart of Edinburgh will stretch already limited resources, increase response times and put public safety at risk. Fires can go from manageable to fully developed in a matter of minutes, and closing the station could place significant pressure on the surrounding stations, two of which are already among the busiest in Scotland. With climate change bringing more severe wildfires and other emergencies, the demands on our fire service are only going to rise. We are all too aware of the danger and damage caused by fast-spreading wildfires, and we witnessed such scenes on Arthur’s Seat last summer. Dry vegetation acted like kindling, and shifting winds drove flames towards paths, wildlife habitats and homes.”
“My constituents are deeply concerned about the proposal to close Marionville fire station and relocate its services to Newcraighall, with the likelihood of increased response times for those of us who live and work in the city centre. My constituents do not consider that to be a minor adjustment; they think that it is a dangerous backward step. The proposal comes at a time when east Edinburgh’s population is growing at an unprecedented rate, increasing demand on services. Local fire services also cover major venues such as Meadowbank stadium, which holds 1,300 people, and Easter Road stadium, which has capacity for 20,000 people. Local people feel that the risks in our area are increasing, not decreasing.”
“I thank my Green colleague Maggie Chapman for securing this debate. I also express my thanks to Scotland’s firefighters and their support staff for their continuing dedication, professionalism and courage in keeping our communities safe across Scotland. Many constituents have been in contact with me about their concerns about the proposed closure of Marionville fire station. Marionville fire station is located just along the road from the Scottish Parliament, less than a mile from the city centre. It serves a densely populated area and provides cover to a large part of Edinburgh, including the growing populations in the north and east, the Forth ports and the Scottish Parliament. It forms part of the broad response network that keeps our communities safe through rapid emergency response and prevention work.”
“The current system uses sledgehammers to crack nuts, and some of the best, most worthy and most socially beneficial businesses miss out as a result. Our small business rates relief scheme goes to businesses that are anything but small, because we use a totally unfit definition of small. A fairer system, in which big businesses pay more and do so according to their ability to pay, would allow us to target rates relief at those who are most deserving. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that we have exhausted all the time that we had in hand, so they will have to stick to their speaking time allocations. I call Jamie Greene, who has up to four minutes. 16:23”
“The whole point of the transitional reliefs for revaluations is clear: it is to stop that cliff edge from happening for anybody who may struggle to adapt quickly to their changed expenses. Why, then, do we pay transitional relief to those who have no issue with transitioning? Under the current regime of transitional reliefs, we are giving public money to big businesses that have no issue with paying the higher rates. It makes no sense for us to be giving tax breaks to multinational companies with millions in turnover. That is money that could be better targeted towards genuine small businesses, especially in retail and hospitality, that are struggling to stay afloat. Surely there can be cross-party consensus on that. Greens advocate for a fairer rates system.”
“If a small business is not bringing in enough money through the tills to pay the bills, that is much more to do with the economic disaster of Tory Governments and the reduction in disposable incomes, which means that people are simply spending less. That is why many small businesses, especially in retail and hospitality, are struggling. If a business owner is spending all their money on expensive rent, they are not going to the shops or pubs very often. That is the reality. The Tories’ motion seems confused. They are simultaneously asking for a pause on revaluation implementation and for the implementation of transitional reliefs. We have a system of transitional reliefs for revaluations. Would they be satisfied by the implementation of a revaluation that was paired with transitional reliefs?”
“Revaluation simply reflects increases in the rateable values of the properties. It is a sound principle that, as the relative wealth of a business is raised through the effect of inflation on property values, so, too, is its contribution. The current system disproportionately benefits the owners of premises as opposed to the tenants of premises. That is why we, in the Scottish Greens, support a consolidated system of land value taxation. Land is an incredibly valuable asset and a source of wealth, yet it is not taxed fairly. Let us take a step back and look at the big picture of the economy as it affects small businesses. Rents, rates and property values are going up, but spending and business output are not.”
“The Scottish Greens have no shortage of proposals for how our non-domestic rates system could be changed. Right now, we are not using the rates system as well as we could to achieve our social and economic aims. As Greens, we have fundamental disagreements with the Tories’ position as set out in their motion, but we hope to get some consensus and agreement that our rates system can and should be made fairer. Regular revaluation is a feature of the system, not a bug. We have designed a system of proportional taxation, with rates payers paying rates based on the value of their premises. Therefore, accurate valuation is a key part of that system. We need only look at our council tax system to see the distortions that are caused by the failure to undertake revaluations and having people pay taxes based on inaccurate valuations.”
“Although a contractor being able to contract out of statutory rights respects commercial freedom, some consumer advocates fear that protections for individuals in asymmetric relationships will be weakened, as Mr Whitfield said.”
“One of my concerns about the bill is that it will allow parties to contract out of many statutory provisions. For example, a consumer might pay for a service that never happened, but the contract might say that there will be no refunds under any circumstances. Under the bill, that might be enforceable if the consumer agrees, even though the default law would allow recovery. Martin Whitfield: I think that Lorna Slater shares my concern that the inequality of contracting power might be exploited by one party to work against individuals. Does she agree that that needs to be considered at stage 2, even if only to provide reassurance that such circumstances will not happen? Lorna Slater: I completely agree. As I continue my remarks, Mr Whitfield will understand why.”
“The changes are intended to make the law clearer and more predictable. On remedies, although the inclusion of restitution and retention provisions is positive, some consultees expressed concern about their practical application. For example, how will courts assess reasonable value when no price is agreed? Will that lead to more litigation rather than less? I look forward to hearing more about those issues as the bill progresses. Small businesses and consumer groups have welcomed the clarity, but they have also cautioned that the bill’s language must remain accessible. If the bill becomes overly technical, it could replicate the very barriers that it seeks to remove. There are also questions about how the rules will interact with existing consumer protection frameworks.”
“The bill seeks to modernise Scots contract law by clarifying how contracts are formed and what remedies will apply when obligations are not met. Scots contract law is based on historical common law principles that are scattered across case law and often hard to access. In its 2018 report, the Scottish Law Commission identified that parts of the law were unclear, outdated and difficult to find, which creates uncertainty for businesses and individuals. The reforms that are proposed in the bill follow the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendations and aim to provide greater certainty and accessibility. The bill will introduce statutory rules on offers, acceptance, withdrawal and lapse. It will also codify remedies for breach, including restitution and valuation of benefits when no price is agreed.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do not intend to use my full time. The Scottish Greens understand the seriousness and urgency of this legislation and are content to support the bill at stage 3. 18:12 Ivan McKee: I am grateful to everyone across the chamber for coming together to pass this legislation at pace. I do not have much to say other than that the bill is fundamental for the non- domestic rates system to function as intended by Parliament and for councils to have the powers to levy rates on the owners of unoccupied properties, subject to any local relief that they may wish to offer backdated to 1 April 2023. I thank all members for their time to consider the bill. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Motion without Notice 18:13”
“As I said, the corporate body will continue to keep its position under review and will consider the impact of any future legal rulings and the new statutory code of practice once it comes into force.”
“Lorna Slater: I am extremely disappointed to hear that. Given that the EHRC has withdrawn its interim guidance, which would have segregated trans people from cis people in facilities at the Scottish Parliament, I ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to revisit the matter in line with human rights legislation and the need to ensure that trans people feel welcome in the Scottish Parliament. Jackson Carlaw: It is not for the corporate body to speculate on why the EHRC has withdrawn its interim update. The EHRC has not indicated that it has changed its position and the draft code of practice remains with the United Kingdom Government for consideration.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will review its interim position on the use of facilities and services at the Parliament, following the Supreme Court ruling, and seek specialist legal advice, in light of the Equality and Human Rights Commission withdrawing its interim guidance. (S6O-05224) Jackson Carlaw (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The corporate body is content that its interim position remains in line with the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling in April. The SPCB will continue to keep its interim position under review and consideration as part of the inclusive Parliament review, and will consider the impact of any future legal rulings and of the new statutory code of practice when it comes into force. In doing so, we will continue to seek specialist advice as and when it is required.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do not intend to use my full time. The Scottish Greens understand the seriousness and importance of the bill and are content that the proposed solution to the drafting error in the 2020 legislation is in keeping with the intention of that legislation and does not change policy or practice. The Scottish Greens will support the bill at stage 1. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 17:45”
“Since Russell Findlay took over the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives, he has taken the party into outright rejection of science and evidence and full-on climate denial, suggesting, as the motion for debate does, that understanding the implications of climate science and the importance of meeting international legal obligations is ideological. I would have thought that would horrify traditional Conservatives, who respect experts, science and international law.”
“I understood that you called on Graeme Dey, the minister, to wind up the debate. The minister is repeating his pre-prepared remarks. Serious questions have been raised across the chamber, and I wonder whether we will get an opportunity to hear the minister’s response to those concerns. If this is an emergency and if there is urgency, we deserve a minister who will respond to a 15-minute debate. The Presiding Officer: As members will be aware, the content of a member’s contribution is a matter for the member. That concludes the debate— Douglas Ross: The minister is not finished. That was a point of order during his speech.”
“I do not intend to use my full time. The Scottish Greens understand the need for the bill and the proposed timetable, and will support the motion this evening. The Presiding Officer: I call Graeme Dey to wind up. You have up to four minutes, minister. 16:48 Graeme Dey: I will be equally concise. I call on members to support the motion to bring the law, as quickly as possible, fully into alignment with the position as intended by Parliament and with the system that has been universally understood and operated in practice since 1 April 2023. Craig Hoy: Will the minister take an intervention? Graeme Dey: We must maintain the credibility of the tax and protect public finances, and the bill will do that by clarifying the legislative position as quickly as possible. Douglas Ross: On a point of order, Presiding Officer.”
“The bill needs to ensure that more assets are owned by communities and that the profits and benefits of those assets are kept locally—whether that involves a community-owned energy scheme, where the profits are spent on local infrastructure, or community woodlands that are maintained for the use and benefit of the people who live there. The Scottish Greens support the principle of the bill but we would like to see a lot more in it. 15:33”
“Councils and public bodies need to be empowered to choose local businesses, co-operative businesses, social enterprises and small businesses when they buy goods and services. The bill needs to ensure that public assets are optimised for public good. For example, local authorities must be supported to turn buildings and facilities that they do not need any more into places that support their community—whether by housing charities, social enterprises and small businesses or as community centres where people can meet, learn and connect—rather than selling or renting them to the highest bidder, or leaving them empty.”
“In his defence, Adrian Gillespie went on to talk about fair work, community regeneration and place making, which are elements of community wealth building. Handily, there is a good description of what community wealth building is on the first page of the bill: “facilitating and supporting the generation, circulation and retention of wealth in local and regional economies.” That means that assets are owned locally and by communities, and that the benefits, including profits, are retained locally and by the community. This bill needs to make sure that more money, including public money, can be and is spent locally. That means removing the legislative and other barriers that prevent local authorities from buying locally. Cheapest is not always best.”
“His response was: “The major contribution that we make to community wealth building is in creating and protecting high-value jobs”.—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 17 September 2025; c 4.] That is an excellent goal and an important outcome, but it is absolutely not community wealth building if those high-value jobs are for companies that are owned by private interests, which own the assets and keep the profits. That is company owners and shareholders building wealth for themselves, which is fine—I do not have an issue with private profit, provided that it pays its taxes, does not pollute the environment and treats people fairly—but it is the exact opposite of community wealth building.”
“In its present draft, the bill sets out an intention in legislation—it is not totally clear that what is in it could not be done without legislation, but it is, at least, an alignment of policy intention in the right direction, even if it is not yet much of a step forward. I am somewhat concerned that there is not a wide understanding in the Government and the public sector of what community wealth building is. When Adrian Gillespie, chief executive officer of Scottish Enterprise, was at the committee in September, I asked him what role Scottish Enterprise should have in community wealth building.”
“It is fair to say that at the Economy and Fair Work Committee session where this bill was presented to us, the response from the committee was pretty nonplussed. The bill does not actually have in it any of the significant changes in powers that can only be provided by legislation: improvements to the compulsory sales order system, a compulsory purchase order system, changes to powers of local authorities so that they can legally procure locally what they need. Those things all still need doing and I am disappointed that the Scottish Government did not take this opportunity to do them. However, we are debating the bill in front of us, rather than the bill that we wish we had.”
“However, we need to trust teachers. That level of trust requires safeguards—not more form filling and reporting but giving teachers the time and space for proper peer review and support. There are huge strengths in our education system. We should not create a doom loop of political and media commentary. Raising the challenges and putting pressure on both levels of government to solve them is essential. That requires solutions. Our school staff and students deserve nothing less. 16:31”
“We strongly urge the Scottish Government to use that report as the starting point of a discussion with COSLA about how to reduce and standardise data collection in our schools. Our report also highlighted how the RAG—red, amber, green—system creates an incentive for schools to focus on the amber students, where most of the measurable improvement gains are to be had, effectively acting as a disincentive to support pupils who are struggling and flagged as red. A system that revolves around blunt metrics is one that no longer sees our young people as individuals. That is the opposite of what the curriculum for excellence was supposed to have delivered. We would also like the 2015 report on tackling bureaucracy to be dusted down and implemented. Many of those issues are not new; we did not need to reinvent the wheel to tackle them.”
“Even if we accept the premise of SNSAs, the mission creep around them has created significant extra workload for teachers. Schools and councils have added their own reporting requirements on top of the core system. Teachers spend more and more of their week generating reports to feed the system, rather than focusing on the quality of their teaching and the needs of their pupils. SNSAs are just one example of the huge variety of data collection demands that are placed on teachers across the country. That is one area in which reform could be delivered quickly and save rather than cost money. Green MSPs submitted a report to the cabinet secretary two years ago. Based on focus groups with teachers and headteachers from across the country, it laid out examples of unnecessary and inconsistent data collection.”
“Much of that workload does not even improve the quality of teaching and learning. It is bureaucratic and entirely unnecessary. A vast system of data collection has been established by national and local government, with the burden falling on overworked classroom teachers. Let us take the example of standardised tests. The Scottish Greens oppose Scottish national standardised assessments entirely. We believe that they are rooted in a mistrust of teachers, and that the anxiety that they generate is simply not worth the limited data that is collected. In session 5, Parliament voted to scrap them in primary 1 entirely, but the Scottish Government ignored that and went on with them. They cost at least £5 million per year, which is hard to justify when education budgets are so squeezed.”