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 6 of 10.
“First, commissioners were and are being requested in response to perceived failings in public services, and creating a commissioner is a tangible and visible action that can be taken. Secondly, there is both the political kudos that a member may achieve by campaigning for and achieving the creation of a commissioner and the political difficulty caused to other politicians who might vote or speak against something that we all want, such as better public services for disadvantaged people, victims, patients and so on. Thirdly, there has been a lack of attention and adherence to existing guidelines on the creation of new SPCB-supported bodies and commissioners. Those guidelines have existed for a while, but the Government and members proposing bills have ignored them.”
“It was a privilege to be a member of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, and I thank the convener and our excellent clerking and research team for their work. It was a genuinely interesting and productive committee. Over the course of several months, we were able to take a great deal of evidence and dig into the issues raised in some depth. We compared what we do in Scotland with how other countries manage those bodies that are responsible for maintaining trust in public life. I support the convener’s motion, and I commend the paper to members. Among the things that the committee explored were the reasons behind the sudden expansion and proposed expansion of the SPCB-supported bodies, in particular the requests for advocacy commissioners. We found that there were three reasons for that.”
“It is also worth noting that, far from public money being spent on the Lochaber site, we have received many millions in fees as a result of the guarantee that we have put in place, and up-to-date payments have been made against the payments to the bond holders. As I have indicated, we have been watching the situation closely for a number of years and, if something were to happen, we have contingency plans that would allow us to step in and take appropriate measures. I do not want to talk through the detail of that now, because of commercial confidentiality, but I hear Lorna Slater’s comments clearly, and she can rest assured that we have taken into account all the issues that she has raised.”
“The metals industry in the UK has been described as being in paralysis, as the GFG companies face criminal prosecution for years of failing to disclose their accounts. It is surely a cautionary tale of allowing key industries to be concentrated in the hands of a single, powerful, wealthy man. The minister says that contingency plans are in place to cover any eventualities. Does that mean that Scottish public money might be required to bail out this possibly criminal billionaire, or would the minister propose nationalising key assets under new management? Ivan McKee: As I have indicated, contingency plans are in place.”
“In 2024, one in six UK households experienced hunger. More than 14 million people, including 3.8 million children, were food insecure. Child poverty is not just a number; it represents millions of people suffering inside the union.”
“Because the union is not working for us. It allows the rich to get richer, unchecked. It sees cuts to services that are relied on by millions of people as the only way to balance the budget. Murdo Fraser: Will Lorna Slater take an intervention? Lorna Slater: I will make some progress. The UK is one of the most unequal countries in Europe. Wealth is concentrated in very few hands, while families across Scotland struggle. There is no shortage of money, but it is hoarded by a few, while millions struggle. The UK child poverty figures are morally repugnant. As of April 2024, 4.5 million children in the UK—31 per cent—lived in relative poverty. That was a record high. A hundred thousand more children fell into poverty compared with the previous year. Most of those children—72 per cent—live in working households. Food insecurity is widespread.”
“Every year, when the GERS figures are published, unionist parties treat them as though they are some kind of gotcha. They claim that the numbers prove that Scotland cannot afford independence, but that is not what the GERS figures show. Depending on how accurately you rate them, they reflect Scotland’s finances inside the UK—inside the union. By definition, they cannot say anything about what Scotland’s finances would be like outside the UK. Unfortunately for Mr Fraser and his colleagues, who are unable to come up with many persuasive things to say on the subject of the union, they cling to the GERS figures as an alternative to proper debate about the future of the union. They want independence supporters to just go quiet and disappear, but half of Scotland believes in independence, and we are not going away. Why?”
“The final issue that I want to address is that of alignment with the EU. The bill’s history is related to Brexit and retained EU law. The bill includes the ability to align with EU environmental law when it comes to protecting the environment, but, as other members have mentioned, the UK Government also has the ability, in that context, to diverge from EU law. However, the bill gives the UK Government the power to align with EU environmental law. Of course, that is the policy of the Scottish Government, and we urge the UK Government to do that at every opportunity. I urge Parliament to support the motion. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the legislative consent motion on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Employment Rights Bill”
“It is disappointing that we did not get all that we asked for in the bill. I argue that our ask was largely uncontroversial, but the UK Government still would not give us what we asked for. However, we got the key ask, which was for Scottish ministers’ consent to be required in relation to any relevant measures that are brought forward by the UK Government, in order to protect devolution. That important ask was secured, which is why we urge Parliament to support the motion. As I said, the process highlighted a number of issues in relation to our relationship with the Labour Government. Those issues need to be sorted out, because we must not be involved in a constant battle. We must protect Scottish devolution. As that is in the interests of the people of Scotland, all parties in the Parliament should stand up for that.”
“The bill provides a framework for new regulation to keep pace with those technological advances and support the future development of many products and sectors while addressing safety and environmental concerns. It also provides opportunities to level the playing field between online marketplaces and high-street retailers. Although I acknowledge the UK Government’s decision to amend the bill to introduce a statutory consent mechanism, concerns remain about its approach to devolution in this case. Lorna Slater refuses to support the Government’s motion and says that she is going to abstain. I agree with the concerns that she expressed, because it appears that we are sometimes caught up in a constant battle to protect Scottish devolution and this Parliament's interests.”
“On the wider issues, we all share an aspiration to support sustainable economic growth in this country. In our programme for government, the First Minister and the Government outlined the importance of ensuring that Scotland’s economy is prepared for the emerging challenges and opportunities. In a sense, that is what this legislation is about. As I stated, it is essential that the appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place to support economic growth and ensure consumer safety. That is especially true when it comes to innovative products and sectors that are crucial to our future, because we know how fast everything is changing and where technology is taking us. I addressed that in my opening remarks.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind the minister to use full names. Murdo Fraser: I am very grateful to the minister. Will he address the concern, which I outlined in my speech, that although ministers might need to give their consent, there will not necessarily be an opportunity for this Parliament to scrutinise the legislation? Richard Lochhead: As I explained to the committee, if, under the protocol, the UK Government approaches us for consent in relation to any impact on devolved issues, we will write to the relevant parliamentary committees, which will have an opportunity at that point to reflect on what was asked of the Scottish Government. A mechanism will be in place, albeit that it is a bespoke arrangement for this kind of legislation that has been negotiated with the UK Government and indeed Parliament recently.”
“As Murdo Fraser started his speech with the great news that he would curtail his remarks, I feel obliged to do likewise and say that I want to make only a few remarks in response to members’ contributions. First, I note that Murdo Fraser’s argument that the Scottish Government is giving powers away to the UK Government is strange, given that the whole purpose of us coming to Parliament with the LCM today is that, after a bit of a battle with the UK Government, we eventually got an amendment that will require Scottish ministers’ consent on devolved issues in the UK bill. That is the reverse of what Murdo Fraser said. This Government has protected devolution and ensured that, as far as possible, power is retained by this Parliament. Murdo Fraser: Will the minister give way? Richard Lochhead: I am happy to allow Murdo to extend the debate.”
“As residents and citizens of Scotland, we should be concerned that our devolved powers become less and less effective in protecting our environment and public health as Westminster takes those powers back for itself. Devolution is not working for Scotland. Only as an independent country will Scotland have all the powers that we need to protect public health and the environment. The Scottish Greens will not support the LCM and will abstain on it at decision time this evening. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up. You have around three minutes, minister. 15:46 Richard Lochhead: I thank members for their contributions to the debate.”
“Legal instruments such as the LCM that we are discussing reduce the Scottish Government to consenting to what the UK decides to do in areas that are covered by the bill, instead of the Scottish Parliament being able, as we should be under the Scotland Act 1998, to diverge from UK legislation and set our own legislation at our own pace to protect our environment and our public health. The fact that the Scottish Government is reduced to only having the power to consent to what the UK Government decides also means that we depend on it respecting the Sewel convention, which it has failed to do 11 times with no consequences. There is absolutely nothing that we can do if the UK Government decides to ignore our lack of consent. As members of the Scottish Parliament, we should be concerned about the creeping loss of power from this Parliament.”
“Following two rounds of amendments, the legislation now at least requires the Secretary of State to seek the consent of Scottish ministers when making regulations in devolved areas. I bring all that to Parliament’s attention because it is evidence of the creeping rollback of devolution and of the weakening of the powers of this Parliament. More and more powers are being seized by Westminster and this LCM demonstrates that. The matters covered by this LCM can be significant to Scotland’s devolved powers to protect its environment and to protect public health. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has effectively shut down Scotland’s ability to move faster than England in protecting our environment and our public health.”
“This legislative consent motion has been discussed several times by the Economy and Fair Work Committee and I will place my concerns about it on the record. The Scottish Government did not initially recommend that Parliament should consent to the LCM, due to the absence of a mechanism for the UK Government to seek consent from the Scottish Government when making regulations in devolved areas. That is not a trivial problem. The UK Government drafted a piece of legislation that covered devolved areas but did not ask the Scottish Parliament’s consent. At no point in the UK Government process did anyone—not the officials, not the ministers—recognise that they were legislating in devolved areas. It was either that or that they did not care. They entirely overlooked the fact that the Scottish Parliament has responsibility in devolved areas.”
“When I talk about our work on careers, I mean that it should involve reaching not just the young people but the biggest influence on the career decisions that those young people make, which is their parents and carers. Progress has been made in breaking down the gender barriers, but much work remains to address the challenge of attracting more women into engineering and construction—the high- paying sectors that Lorna Slater has identified. We should also be alive to the fact that, in some instances, young men are not being attracted to other professions. That, too, has to be addressed. Apprenticeships (Availability) 5.”
“Graeme Dey: Lorna Slater highlights a really important and long-standing issue, which continues to exercise all of us who have a locus and interest in ensuring that our young people are supported into rewarding and sustainable careers that allow them to best realise their potential. The fact that Scotland’s apprentice of the year, Louise Collins, is a female who is working in aerospace engineering will, I hope, help us to demonstrate to young women that engineering is for them. I also hope that our plans to weave the recommendation of the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board’s gender commission into our work in the reforms space, especially on careers, will be helpful. That is the critical element of how we address this issue.”
“Improving skills planning is key to ensuring that supply is better aligned with the demands of Scotland’s economy. Lorna Slater: I also have concerns about the gender pay gap for Scotland’s apprentices. Male apprentices are predominantly found in sectors such as construction, engineering, information technology and telecommunications—sectors that typically offer higher wages and stronger long-term earning potential. Female apprentices are more likely to be found in social services, health and social care, business and administration, and hairdressing and beauty—sectors that generally have lower average pay and fewer opportunities for progression to higher wages. What is the minister doing to close that gap and ensure that apprenticeships are not trapping women in low- paid work?”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the reported significant demand for apprenticeships from both employers and applicants, what it is doing to increase the number of apprenticeship places available. (S6O-04858) The Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans (Graeme Dey): The Scottish Government is investing £185 million this year to support high-quality apprenticeships, aiming to strengthen the skills system and ensure efficient use of public funds. Our approach to proactive contract management allows flexibility to respond to emerging demand, aligned with Government priorities. Skills Development Scotland supports providers to maximise opportunities throughout the year. We remain committed to working with employers and industry leaders to reform the skills system.”
“Eighteen months ago, the SNP boasted that world leaders would be calling it, asking for advice on net zero. The only people who are phoning it now are waste companies in England asking for contracts. What an incompetent Government it is. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you—members, let us carry out our proceedings in an atmosphere of courtesy and respect. I call Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, to respond. 17:11”
“If that had gone ahead, we would not have been in the situation in which we have lost so much money—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Douglas Lumsden: —and we have got such big exposure from Biffa. One must ask oneself: why is the devolved Government happy to have a DRS that excludes glass now, but to have ditched its own scheme—at huge cost to the Scottish taxpayer—back in 2023? The only logical presumption is that not to go ahead in 2023, at huge cost to taxpayers, was to generate grievance. To create grievance, at huge cost to the taxpayer, just shows what a disgusting organisation the Scottish National Party is. When it comes to net zero, this devolved Government is all talk. It is happy for diesel-fuelled lorries to take our waste to England at huge cost to our taxpayers.”
“The member omits from his remarks that the United Kingdom Government granted very limited exemptions to the internal market act, one of the conditions of which was that the deposit not be determined—not only that the plastic be removed but, specifically, that the deposit not be determined. It is not possible to launch a deposit return scheme without knowing what the deposit is, so the member is not being accurate in how he represents the reasons why the internal market act prevented the launch of Scotland’s scheme. Douglas Lumsden: I thank Lorna Slater for that intervention—the system’s administrator Circularity Scotland was clear that it was happy enough for the scheme to take place.”
“In November 2023, The Ferret revealed that, despite Scottish Enterprise having conducted 199 human rights checks, not a single firm had failed them, even though some have armed states that have been widely accused of war crimes, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International has called the current human rights due diligence process “inadequate” and states that it “is failing to ensure that Scotland upholds its international obligations.” Still, to this day, no company has failed Scottish Enterprise’s human rights due diligence checks.”
“Although I recognise that the Scottish Government does not provide grants for the manufacture of munitions, there is not a moral difference between supplying money to build bombs versus supplying money to build a bomb factory or a training facility to train bomb makers. The principled point is very simple: if a company has profited from the sale of arms and weapons to countries that are complicit in war crimes and genocide, then it should not receive— [Interruption.] I will take interventions in my closing speech. Such a company should not receive public money from the Scottish Government. In 2019, the Scottish Greens secured a commitment from the Scottish Government that all Scottish public bodies would conduct human rights checks on companies, including arms companies, prior to funding them.”
“As per our position in the previous debate, the Scottish Greens believe in progressive taxation as a way to pool our collective resources and invest in the things that matter to all of us. An important principle of modern democracy is that voters should be able to see how their Governments are spending money; there should be transparency and accountability. We know that, since 2019, at least £8 million of Scottish Enterprise grants have been awarded to companies that are involved in arms dealing and manufacturing. We also know that a number of those businesses have directly supplied weapons and military equipment to Israel during its assault on Gaza. Genocide, war crimes and more than 60,000 people killed—I hope that we would all agree that our Government should not be spending money to support those things.”
“But if you have a family, children in education, or elderly relatives needing care”— which is most of us— “Scotland’s public services can provide significant non-cash value that may outweigh the tax difference.” [Interruption.] Lorna Slater: I have only four minutes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is about to conclude. Lorna Slater: I then asked the AI: “What about someone earning an average Scottish wage?” The response was: “For someone earning the average wage, Scotland is likely better overall than England due to ... Comparable or slightly lower income tax ... Significant savings from public services” and “Lower cost of living”. Thank you, AI—I could not have said it better. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Willie Rennie to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. 15:16”
“It applies specifically to income taxes and not to the kind of taxes that the Scottish Greens advocate, such as land value tax and wealth taxation. Our society is extremely wealthy. There is no shortage of money. It is just that it is concentrated in the hands of a few very wealthy people. For a bit of fun, when preparing for this debate, I put this question into an artificial intelligence chat interface: “Between lower house prices, free tuition, baby boxes, free prescriptions, free bus travel for under 22s, free eye tests, and free social care is a person earning £100,000 a year in Scotland better off than a person living in England, even with Scotland’s different income tax regime?” Its conclusion was: “If you’re single, child-free, and healthy, England may offer better net income.”
“For those who believe in a growth- first economic model—those who say, “Once we have growth, then we can put money towards community centres and universal childcare”—what is the magic level of growth that suddenly unlocks that policy change? When has enough wealth been generated that we can start to redistribute it? That model is a toolbox fallacy. Liz Smith: One of the pieces of evidence is something called the Laffer curve, which, as some of the member’s predecessors in the Government knew, is a diagram that shows that when you increase tax, sadly, at one point, the revenue starts to go down. Lorna Slater: I am aware of the Laffer curve. I am also aware of where it has been discredited and where it applies.”
“Believing in a magic money tree or in the growth fairy does not eliminate that truth, however much you wish that it might. High GDP growth does not, by itself, contribute to quality of life and society. In isolation, what it tends to do is indicate that the rich are getting richer while more and more people are being left behind. To see that, we have only to look to America, where there is high GDP growth but staggering levels of poverty, homelessness, violence and people without healthcare, and high maternal mortality. No matter what your GDP is, redistribution of wealth is needed to fund public services and to ensure a functioning society. Without wealth redistribution, the rich will forever get richer while the poor get poorer, until the fabric of society frays and falls apart.”
“In this debate, we will cover ground that we have covered many times before. Although the Scottish Conservatives routinely ask in the Parliament for additional spending, they also routinely deride the taxation that is needed to provide that spending. The Tory magic money tree is sadly a figment of their imaginations. In the real world, countries need to generate revenue, and that means taxation. Taxation is the means by which we pool our resources for the collective good. That money is then allocated for spending and investment by a democratically elected Government. It is a truth that is not universally accepted in the UK that, if you want Scandinavian levels of public services, you have to pay Scandinavian levels of tax.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My apologies. My system was not updating. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Slater. I will ensure that that is recorded.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its plans are for bringing the requisite regulations— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Slater, could you please resume your seat? The question that you are reading out does not reflect the language that is in the Business Bulletin. Could someone perhaps give Ms Slater a copy of the Business Bulletin? Thank you. Could you start again, Ms Slater, for the record? Lorna Slater: My sincere apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of its plans for bringing forward the requisite regulations to fully implement the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021, including the special rights and powers that the act foresees for heat network developers. (S6O-04799)”
“Kids cannot learn if they are hungry. That is why the Greens campaigned for universal free school meals for primary 4 and 5 kids and for the expansion to primary 6 and 7 kids whose families receive the Scottish child payment. It is why we brought the next phase of roll-out to secondary 1, 2 and 3 kids who receive the SCP to the budget negotiations. In August, thousands more high school kids in Aberdeen, Glasgow, Fife, Moray, North Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, Shetland and the Western Isles will now get free school meals. Does the First Minister agree that the programme must be expanded to all council areas as soon as possible to ensure that no kid goes hungry in school?”
“Everyone in Scotland, including everyone in the chamber, recognises the challenges that our NHS is facing. Of course, we are fortunate to still have a fully public NHS in Scotland. Scotland has taken a very different approach to NHS reform compared with England, especially since devolution. While NHS England underwent market-oriented reforms, starting with Tony Blair in the 1990s and then with the Conservative Health and Social Care Act 2012, Scotland focused on integration and collaboration, and not on competition. Maintaining a fully public NHS while Scotland’s purse strings are held by a Government in London that prefers a market and profit-driven model is the subject of one of the many frustrations that I have with the devolution settlement. There is a limit to what Scotland can do, given where we sit in this unequal union.”
“Lorna Slater: I will take the intervention, but I will just finish my thought. That is key to improving productivity as well as to ensuring that wealth and benefits stay in Scotland and with working people. Michelle Thomson: Thank you very much for taking the intervention.”
“Witnesses at the economy committee this morning gave evidence that Scotland’s enterprise agencies and other economic development organisations need to pivot to support community wealth building, which means that they need to provide advice, direction and practical and financial support to businesses that use those alternative business models, not just those that use profit-led models. That may mean that there is some upskilling and a change of direction for those agencies. The Scottish Government needs to give that clear direction to our enterprise agencies and other economic development organisations. We heard at committee this morning that employee-led firms are 9 per cent more productive than traditional firms. Michelle Thomson: Will the member take an intervention?”
“The purpose of community wealth building is to ensure that more people have a stake in and a say on the economy, and that more people benefit from it. One way to implement that is to support the creation of businesses such as co-operatives, social enterprises and those that use other democratic and employee-owned business models. We need more of our start-ups to be businesses that create community wealth, and that workers and communities have a stake in and a say in. We need to be more supportive of employee buy-outs. Business models matter.”
“We have many small businesses in Scotland that are successful and experts in their fields, but they are working so hard to do what they do that they do not have time or resources to do the research and investment that is needed for them to grow. That is where our enterprise agencies and our national investment bank should be stepping in to provide advice and finance, so that those businesses can grow, support local jobs and supply chains and connect with the opportunities of a transition to a green economy. The second element of my amendment is around the nature of start-up businesses. The Economy and Fair Work Committee heard its first evidence on the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill this morning.”
“Half a dozen risky start-ups do not create the same number of jobs or bring the same amount of investment as a company that has a proven product or service and, say, 25 people scaling up to be a company of 50 or 100 people. Without support for scaling up, those start-ups— even if they survive—will stay small. I have had correspondence from the owner of a successful small business who feels stuck. They have a successful business model and would like to grow, but they are too small for the Scottish National Investment Bank to invest in and they are not in a key sector, so the enterprise agencies will not help. Where do they turn? What other options are available to them?”
“Across the chamber, we all agree that we want to have a dynamic and successful business community in Scotland. I am not completely sure that the narrow focus on start-ups that is proposed by the motion is the whole story or a key solution. The entrepreneurial mantra of 10 years ago— “move fast, break things, fail quickly”—seems outdated now, and a waste of talent and resources. We should be looking at building for the long term and for everyone, not only for a few people who have a high appetite for risk and, presumably, enough financial security that they can afford to take that risk. My proposed amendment to the motion has two elements to it. The first agrees with the point in the Labour amendment about supporting successful Scottish businesses to scale up. That is where there appears to be a gap in our economic planning.”
“I am committed to making sure that the Government is providing all the resource that is possible through our local authority funding, as well as through the funding for health boards that should be arriving with our integration joint boards to provide the services that are required. That will ensure that we retain greater capacity and support in communities to prevent people’s ill health from escalating to a point where they require secondary care services or where we have the unscheduled care demand that we are seeing in”
“Yesterday, Aberdeenshire’s integration joint board voted through significant cuts to disabled and other people’s services. That comes on top of the UK Government’s cruel cuts to social security for disabled people and today’s worrying news about the state of NHS Grampian. What will the Scottish Government do to ensure that disabled people in particular are able to access the health and social care that they need in Aberdeenshire? Neil Gray: Lorna Slater highlights an issue that is of great concern to me. [Interruption.] I heard Conservative members say that it has nothing to do with what we are talking about, but it has everything to do with that. I am extremely concerned about capacity potentially being lost in community services in Aberdeenshire.”
“Members may be aware of a lively internet conspiracy that I am a trans woman. If a complaint is made about my using a women’s toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use that toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination? Please be clear. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Christine Grahame: No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything. I fully intend to use the gender-neutral toilets.”
“Lorna Slater: I am very grateful to Stephen Kerr for correcting me on that point, if, indeed, I have got that wrong. I note that at least one United Kingdom Government minister has refused to appear before the Scottish Parliament when requested to do so in writing. Therefore, that would be a good power to have. 16:07”
“The electing of conveners should be structured to avoid popularity contests and to ensure that those who are chosen are committed to rigorous scrutiny. Cross-committee collaboration should be standard practice to address issues that cut across departmental lines. That would help to overcome siloed working and ensure comprehensive scrutiny of multifaceted issues. Finally, committees should have greater powers, including the ability to compel witnesses to appear and to strengthen their oversight capabilities. Stephen Kerr: I think that Lorna Slater will find that, under the Scotland Act 2016, the committees of this Parliament have the power to compel witnesses to appear before them. I think that we already enjoy that privilege in this Parliament— something, by the way, that the Westminster Parliament does not enjoy.”
“Committee conveners should be elected, instead of appointed based on party agreements. The current system allows larger parties, especially the governing party, to use convenerships as a reward for back benchers, reducing the independence and effectiveness of committees. Electing conveners was a recommendation of the parliamentary commission that was established by the previous Presiding Officer, but it has not been enacted in this parliamentary session, which is disappointing. Party and gender balance on committees should be prioritised to ensure diverse representation. Following earlier comments, I note that there is, of course, a difference between perfect gender balance and single-sex committees—wiggle room, as it were, when parties do not have good gender balance among their members in the Parliament.”
“More business time in the chamber should be allocated to committee-led debates, which would require committees to have ideas on what they would like to debate. Committee debates tend to be more informed and constructive and less likely to cut along party lines. The Scottish Greens feel that, at the moment, a large amount of chamber time is wasted on repetitive and unproductive debates, partly due to the Government’s reluctance to risk losing votes, and partly because Opposition parties do not push for more substantive discussions. Bad behaviour in committees such as badgering witnesses or talking over conveners should absolutely not be tolerated. Conveners should enforce decorum and protect witnesses from targeted attacks. Mechanisms should be in place to call out inappropriate behaviour without fear of retaliation.”
“The final point that I will make in my opening speech—I will perhaps make some of the others in my closing speech—is that parliamentary committees are failing to provide adequate scrutiny of SPCB-supported bodies and public bodies beyond the Government. Important findings made by SPCB-supported bodies—and, indeed, other public bodies—are often ignored due to a lack of committee mandate to engage with their work. Parliamentary committees should have duties and mechanisms to effectively scrutinise other public bodies, such as Environmental Standards Scotland. A structured approach, similar to the Public Audit Committee’s weekly sessions with the Auditor General, would improve oversight. There is time, so I will carry on for a bit. In our paper, the Scottish Greens describe how committee structures and practices could be improved.”