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 7 of 10.
“How do we know that what the Government is doing is in line with its stated priorities? Fifthly, the lack of post-legislative scrutiny is a significant issue. At present, the first half of parliamentary sessions can be taken up by members pursuing their personal interests, which has the result of reducing the time that is available within the term to pursue new legislation or to amend existing legislation. If the first half of each parliamentary session was dedicated to post- legislative scrutiny—ensuring that laws, especially framework legislation, are functioning as intended before committees move on to new inquiries—that would resolve the problem.”
“Take, for example, the Government’s stated intention to reach net zero by 2045. How can the Parliament understand whether the budget is taking us in that direction? Some budget lines, such as those for dualling roads, will clearly increase emissions, whereas others, such as the reform of agricultural subsidies, should reduce them—but by how much? What are the trade-offs that the Government is making? Without that information, we cannot scrutinise the budget effectively. The Scottish Government will now be moving to carbon budgeting. That is an opportunity to fix the process and to match financial budget lines with carbon budget lines, so that the Parliament can clearly see how both budgets are being balanced. Fourthly, committees should have a clearer role in monitoring progress against the national performance framework.”
“If follow-up is not feasible within the parliamentary session, legacy reports should explicitly recommend that successor committees prioritise it. Aligning committee work with Government priorities could help to ensure that feedback is received at a time when the Government is working on the subject. It would help ensure that work is taken into consideration at the right time. Thirdly, the Scottish Greens feel that budget scrutiny is largely ineffective and requires a complete overhaul. Reforms were agreed between the Parliament and the Government around budget scrutiny in the previous parliamentary session, but we need to understand how those are being progressed. Within the budget scrutiny process, evaluating how budget decisions align with Government strategy and stated priorities is nearly impossible.”
“First, it should be the role of committees to circle back on and immediately and persistently demand implementation plans for legislation that has been passed and that sets out targets. Costs, effectiveness and progress must all be followed up diligently. Otherwise, we let the Scottish Government get away with saying “We have the most ambitious climate targets in the world” for years, which covers up the truth that they have not taken the actions needed to meet those targets to the point that they are now rushing around having to erase them. Secondly, although committee inquiries are often of very high quality, they frequently lead to no action. There should be structured follow-up to ensure that recommendations are implemented.”
“The Scottish Green group submitted a detailed paper on the inquiry, and I am grateful that this work is being undertaken. We feel that significant improvement to how our parliamentary committees work is needed in order to improve scrutiny of the Scottish Government, particularly post-legislative scrutiny, and scrutiny of public bodies. The Scottish Government is prone to setting itself targets and setting out intentions without following up and taking the action needed to meet them. We have seen that happen disastrously with Scotland’s high-level climate targets, but also with what we might call the supporting targets, such as those on recycling, the reduction of waste, the reduction of car kilometres and so on.”
“The Climate Change Committee report that was published this week shows that Scotland’s carbon emissions are on a disastrous trajectory. The report tells us that “immediate action at pace and scale” is needed to cut emissions so that Scotland can meet its new carbon budgets and build a path to net zero that creates good jobs and saves people money. That means that we need a proper plan for warmer homes that are cheaper to heat, and real investment to make public transport available and affordable to get people out of their cars. The First Minister often tells us how proud he is of balancing Scotland’s financial budget every year, but what immediate actions will he take to balance Scotland’s first carbon budget?”
“If the Scottish Government has any intentions of meeting its biodiversity and net zero targets, how can it not support its own national park in opposing that development? Ivan McKee: Again, the reporter considered all the issues that Lorna Slater has raised and that were raised as objections to the development. That is why the requirement for the legal agreement is in place and why the 49 planning conditions are in place, which have to be satisfied precisely in order to address the issues that she has raised. I do not want to go into the details of the case, because it is not appropriate for me to do that. The member can reflect on the fact that the specific objections that the national park made have been addressed by the reporter’s work.”
“I reiterate the calls from my colleagues that the Scottish Government should call in this planning permission. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority has the aim of making the park “a thriving place that is nature positive and carbon negative” by 2045. That is in line with the priorities that are set out in our national planning framework, NPF4. The Flamingo Land theme park is a totally inappropriate development that will clear considerable woodland to build 104 lodges, two hotels, a water park, a monorail and 372 parking spaces. The project’s carbon footprint and damage to ecosystems will be enormous, and the park authority is right to reject it. Scotland cannot meet our climate and biodiversity goals if our national parks cannot lead the way.”
“If someone does not agree with abortion, they should not have one, but they should not remove the choice from others—they will not experience the ramifications of the choice that they are taking away from them. It is their right to choose for themselves—it is all of our right to choose. That means that this Parliament should support the right for terminally ill adults to choose an assisted death when the time is right for them. 17:51”
“There are decades of data to tell us what works in protecting people from coercion and what safeguards must be in place to ensure that it is the person themselves who defines their suffering, rather than having able-bodied people projecting suffering on to disabled people in such a way that someone is pressured into accepting something that they did not choose. Blocking this legislation could mean inflicting months or years of suffering on those who do not want it and would choose to avoid it. Blocking the legislation is not the right answer to preventing coercion or to ensuring full regard for the rights of disabled people. The right answer is to ensure robust, human rights-based safeguards for everyone. For me, this debate is much like the one around abortion.”
“I am content that the bill differs from the one that has been introduced in England, particularly with respect to the limit on life expectancy. That someone who is expected to suffer for longer than six months might lose the capacity to make the choice to end that suffering and might therefore miss out on the option to access assisted dying and be condemned to suffer for longer both terrifies and horrifies me. As an autistic person, I am slightly concerned how caveats around mental illness may be interpreted. I would not want to be excluded from access to assisted dying because of my autism. I hope and expect that autistic people will be included in discussions at all stages of the process. It is absolutely right to learn from other countries in implementing this law.”
“The fear of potentially being trapped, suffering— whether in pain, struggling to breathe or unable to eat or experience pleasure—and being forced to exist in a collapsing mind while my body carries on, and with those who love me being forced to witness my suffering, makes me want to have that choice. The decision to end our life prematurely to avoid suffering and to experience a good death is only a choice if we also have excellent palliative care. That is not an either/or situation. Unless excellent palliative care is in place, we cannot be said to have a legitimate choice. I support all calls from members across the chamber for the universal availability of comprehensive, properly resourced and compassionate palliative care.”
“The Scottish Greens who were elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2021 stood on the manifesto pledge to introduce “safe and compassionate laws that allow terminally ill adults the right to an assisted death when the time is right for them.” I am speaking in support of the bill that is before us at stage 1 today because I believe that it does that. For me, support for assisted dying comes from a profound belief in bodily autonomy: the choice about what happens to our bodies. It comes from a place of compassion and a desire to alleviate suffering. While I am able to consent, no one has the right to tell me what to do with my body.”
“We must remain vigilant and united in our efforts to create lasting peace by supporting democracy, justice and human rights for all. 12:07”
“On this 80th anniversary, marking the end of a dark chapter in history, we remember the sacrifices that were made by all who stood against the tyranny of fascism. Their courage and resilience ensured our freedom, peace and democracy. We will forever be grateful to them. Peace is not merely the absence of war; it is the presence of harmony, understanding and co- operation among nations. Yet, currently, we are witnessing the horrors of genocide continuing in Gaza, and fascism has reappeared, threatening democracy and human rights as the far right rises around the world. We cannot be complacent in the face of growing threats of fascism, international violence, hatred and oppression. We must continue to strive to build a world where peace endures and the horrors of the past are not repeated.”
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-17437, in the name of Kate Forbes, on programme for government—building the best future for Scotland, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer, but my app has now updated, so I think that I am all right. The Presiding Officer: I confirm that your vote has been recorded, Ms Slater. For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-17437.1, in the name of Jamie Greene, is: For 30, Against 84, Abstentions 1.”
“I move amendment S6M-17437.3, to, leave out from first “to grow” to end and insert: “could have been an opportunity for bold, decisive action towards building a more equal, healthier and greener Scotland with an economy that works for people and planet; recognises the substantial changes to Scotland’s transport, industry, land use and homes and buildings systems that are required to meet the challenges of the climate emergency, as described by the UK Climate Change Committee; further recognises the need for action to create well-paid, skilled jobs in growing low-carbon industries; believes that tackling poverty requires not only strong, resilient economies that provide access to fair work opportunities and support investment in public services, but also measures that secure the human rights of all citizens, from affordable, accessible housing and education to a social security system based on care and compassion; regrets the weakening of commitments to tackle climate change and the housing emergency, such as the watering down of the proposed Heat in Buildings Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill; expresses its dismay that the proposed Bills to tackle misogyny and end conversion practices have been dropped from this Programme for Government, and calls on the Scottish Government to reconsider its position on human rights and equalities legislation and urgently produce an ambitious plan to tax wealth more effectively in Scotland to ensure appropriate investment in public services, support communities and build a fairer Scotland.” 15:26”
“From ditching plans to ban so- called conversion therapy and introduce the long- awaited misogyny bill, to rolling back on addressing climate action, this is not the programme for government that Scotland needs. The Scottish Government can do better than that, and the Scottish Greens will keep pushing it to do so.”
“We cannot get people out of their cars when buses remain unreliable or unavailable, and trains remain so expensive. The watering down of our ambitions to make homes cheaper and cleaner to heat will make it impossible to meet our 2045 net zero target, unless we make up the difference in other sectors. Will the Scottish Government really go that much further and faster on emissions reduction in agriculture and transport to make up the difference from what it is not going to achieve in housing? With the world and climate in crisis, people across Scotland want reassurance that the Government is still on their side, and that cannot come from broken promises and scrapped commitments.”
“Scotland is unfair for so many people, and the Scottish Government could do more to make it fairer—for example, with greater ambition to deliver warmer homes and cheaper energy bills, and with rent controls to end rip-off rents and protect renters. We need an ambitious plan to tax wealth in Scotland effectively and reinvest it in public services for communities. We need cheaper bus fares—and, indeed, cheaper fares across all public transport. Capped bus fares would go a long way towards delivering that. I am particularly disappointed that the car kilometre reduction target has been scrapped. The target could have been met, but the Scottish Government was never bothered about putting a plan in place to follow through and make the effort to meet it.”
“Moreover, progress towards the devolution of parking fines to local authorities, and allowing local authorities to increase council tax on second homes, are welcome, if somewhat overdue, developments. However, I see too many backward steps on progressive policy. The Government does not always seem to be willing to do the hard things that we need to do to build a fairer, greener Scotland. We need those things now—because, to be frank, we are running out of tomorrows. It would have been good to see some progress on tackling the high levels of wealth inequality that we see entrenched in Scotland, and a recognition that income inequality has surged in recent years.”
“There are references to key budget commitments that were also won by the Scottish Greens, such as the £2 bus fare cap pilot, the free bus travel pilot for people seeking asylum and the increased roll-out of free school meals in eight local authority areas for Scottish child payment recipients from secondary 1 through to secondary 3. The roll-out of the offshore wind skills programme and the continuation of the nature restoration fund for another year are also to be welcomed, and I am pleased to see a recommitment to a 20mph speed limit as the default by the end of 2025-26. It will make our towns and cities safer for children, pedestrians and cyclists, and will also reduce pollution.”
“It is possible to build a fairer and greener Scotland, and we need a brave and bold Government to do so. Greener means rapidly reducing emissions, in line with the advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, and restoring our depleted nature. Fairer means redistributing wealth and opportunity so that homes are affordable and work pays fair wages, and ensuring that our social security net allows everyone to live with dignity. It means implementing practical measures to get money back into people’s pockets and to reduce poverty. There are some good examples of those policies in the programme for government, including a permanent end to peak rail fares, a policy that was first brought in by the Scottish Greens in October 2023.”
“We all accept that we are living in uncertain times, from Donald Trump to war in Europe, Palestine and now potentially Kashmir—and, looking ahead, to the impacts of climate change. The increase in armed conflict is a glimpse of things to come as the breakdown of our climate progresses, the earth’s resources become scarcer and our planet heats up. The Scottish Government cannot be timid in its response to the challenges that we face. We are facing profound threats, and we need profound answers. It is not enough to try to do the same thing faster with ever-reducing resources. Business as usual is not only alienating a significant proportion of our society and driving them into the arms of the far right; it is not reducing emissions fast enough to prevent the collapse of our environment.”
“The Government faced difficult financial choices at the time of addressing that issue. We have got public finances into a stronger position, so we are now able to afford that policy, which we will be delighted to introduce. Of course, it will make a big difference for travellers around the country. On the question of cheaper buses, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has progressed the pilot work that we agreed in the budget process, and we will examine its results with interest. Financial support through concessionary travel for people aged under 22 or over 60 and for disabled people is making a significant contribution to supporting bus travel in”
“I am delighted that the Government has finally committed to the Scottish Greens’ policy of ending peak rail fares for good. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government said that it would not do that—it even voted against the Greens’ calls to do so—but we have finally got there. More brave decisions will be needed if we are to make all public transport cheaper. The Scottish Government agreed to the Greens’ proposal for a £2 bus fare cap to be run as a local pilot from January 2026. However, people all across Scotland need cheaper buses now. Will the First Minister avoid the hesitation that he showed over peak rail fares and get on with delivering another great idea from the Scottish Greens—capping bus fares all over Scotland for good? The First Minister: I welcome Lorna Slater’s encouragement on peak rail fares.”
“As with its climate targets, the Scottish Government is not on track to meet its targets to cut car use. It sounds like, instead of putting forward a practical solution for success, its preferred solution is to drop the target altogether. We urgently need to cut car use to tackle the climate emergency. We need cheaper trains, buses and ferries to drive up passenger numbers. We need better connections for rural communities, and we need public ownership of bus services, so that they are run for the people who use them, not for private profit. Will the First Minister confirm that the Scottish Government is scrapping the car-use reduction target?”
“Part of that is about identifying the infrastructure sites, our future energy needs and the changes that are going to be needed to get the country on track to meet its net zero goals. We need a clear plan and not just hand-waving that signals that we are okay to carry on as we are, with people saying, “Don’t worry—carbon capture will sort it out.” We are not, and it will not. It is clear that, for there to be a just transition, substantial Government investment will be required that is far beyond the means of the devolved”
“There was a sort of collective imagining that things could go on indefinitely until it was too late for so many jobs and for the community. Clearly, the challenge of Grangemouth was increased by the fact that it is owned by a billionaire who has no interest in the wellbeing of the community or the long-term prospects of Scotland’s economy. There is also a big question here about letting key infrastructure be owned in that way, which allows our environment and our people to be treated with such callous disregard. Both the Scottish Government and the UK Government need to acknowledge the changes to our energy infrastructure and wider society that will be needed to tackle climate change.”
“As anyone who is seeking to tackle addiction knows, the first step is to acknowledge the problem and recognise that change is necessary, but here is where I find frustration in the chamber. We hear everything from denial that climate change is happening to denial that daily life is going to need to change if we are to reduce the impacts of climate change. We cannot pretend that we can continue to extract oil and gas and burn it forever. We need to admit that we cannot do that and put in place the plans and strategies for how we are going to phase them out, changing our economy to one that is based on clean energy and clean heat. A denial that transition was needed until it was too late is exactly what happened to the workers of Grangemouth.”
“It is, naturally, in the interests of multinational capitalist corporations to try to extract as much profit from a declining industry as they can. After all, they exist for the sole purpose of making profits and it is not in their interest or remit to consider what the future will look like in 30, 50 or 100 years’ time. However, that is in our remit. We have this one dwindling chance to prevent the worst of this building catastrophe—this one chance to do the right thing by future generations by phasing out the fossil fuels of oil, gas and coal and to do the right thing by present generations by investing in a different future. Some have called our dependence on fossil fuels an addiction.”
“The theme of my amendment is transition. We speak a lot in the chamber about the transition away from oil and gas, and I believe that most members accept the scientific consensus that humanity must urgently reduce its carbon emissions if planet earth is to remain habitable. The projections about what our home planet will look like if we approach 3° or 4° of warming are terrifying, and it is unclear how much life our planet could support past 6°, although our civilisation would certainly have collapsed by that point. Anyone who thinks that I am exaggerating the risk has not read enough climate science, and anyone who thinks that the cost of preventing climate collapse is too high has not understood the cost of the collapse of earth’s biosphere.”
“I assert that such legislation can be scrutinised, should members choose to do so.”
“In 20 or 30 years, when we are trying to ban another plastic or to manage it in some way through a deposit return scheme or some other mechanism, there will absolutely need to be adequate scrutiny at the time—this Parliament would never be able to adequately scrutinise that, but that scrutiny must be there. Equally, the introduction of entirely new powers to manage a single item in the future does not make sense either. I am suggesting that we improve processes around secondary legislation, particularly on that financial point, which is the area that Michelle Thomson and Finlay Carson identified. I make another assertion, which is that I am not wholly convinced by arguments that secondary legislation—even negative instruments—cannot be adequately scrutinised.”
“In those circumstances, we are virtually guaranteeing that we will write a blank cheque. That carries significant risks from a scrutiny and good governance point of view. It is about overcoming those risks. What does the member think about that? Lorna Slater: I absolutely identify with the problem that the member has raised. That is why there need to be suitable instruments for managing the scrutiny of the financial costs at the secondary legislation stage. That is a proposal that I am suggesting that the Parliament looks at in order to allow that secondary legislation to move forward.”
“We can imagine that a bill might have a lifetime of several decades, and who knows what sort of single-use items or novel materials might become problematic in the future? There is a good case to be made for a mechanism for financial scrutiny of secondary legislation to mitigate that concern, and I would hope that the Parliament would consider changing processes to allow that. Michelle Thomson: The member and I sat on opposite sides on the consideration of that particular bill. My recollection is that the concern at that time was from a purely financial perspective. We accept that all financial memorandums are best guesses at the best of times, but I am talking about being presented with a financial memorandum that has a vast range and considerable complexity and uncertainty.”
“To continue with my thought, I hope that it is obvious that it makes sense to use framework powers to manage single-use items. Secondary legislation would allow the Parliament to prioritise the items that cause the most problems and to react quickly when items such as single-use vapes constitute an urgent issue. One of the reasonable issues that was raised with me during the consideration of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill was the frustration of the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it could not adequately scrutinise the framework elements of the bill, because I was unable to tell it how the powers that the bill conferred might be used by future Governments, as I mentioned in my intervention on Roz McCall.”
“Finlay Carson: I believe that the issue is not necessarily about framework bills; it is about the safeguards that accompany framework bills. It is also about the Parliament’s ability to scrutinise secondary legislation when it is introduced, as it is incredibly difficult at the moment to do that scrutiny. Maybe we should look at requiring the approval of the Parliament before secondary legislation under framework legislation is put forward. For example, the good food nation plan will be laid, but there is no role for the Parliament in approving it or amending it in any way. Lorna Slater: I am glad that the member raises that point. I will come on to exactly that issue, because I agree with him that improvements to the scrutiny of secondary legislation are possible.”
“We have all participated in beach cleans and seen litter in our parks, and we should understand by now, I hope, the carbon impact of manufacturing items that are only used once and then disposed of. Without framework bills, separate primary legislation would have to be introduced for every different type of single-use plastic that we want to put in place measures to manage. One can imagine how onerous that would be on parliamentary time and how much less the Parliament would be able to do on health, education, food security and so on if it were painstakingly passing separate primary legislation for every type of plastic item that we want to manage. Finlay Carson: Will the member give way? Lorna Slater: Certainly.”
“I am glad that this debate has been brought to the chamber. Continuous improvement in how we operate as a Parliament is a worthy goal. I am pleased to be able to contribute. I have heard from members across the chamber, in particular when I was working on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, their reasonable concerns about framework bills. My position today is largely in support of that mechanism, with the caveat that I recognise and agree with much of what is in the committee’s report—although I do not agree with all of it. There are good reasons why framework legislation might be used. I will use examples in the circular economy space, because that is the area that I am most familiar with. Every member in the chamber is aware of some of the problems created by the large number of single-use items that are currently used in our society.”
“Flexibility is essential, but thorough communication at the inception of a bill is also essential. The financial implications should be as detailed as possible and provided up front. Given the encouraging letter from the minister, I look forward to seeing how the recommendations progress to ensure that the Scottish Parliament produces the best laws possible for the people of Scotland. 15:37”
“I appreciate that the minister provided a speedy response to the report and gave his commitment that the Scottish Government will ensure “that the Scottish Parliament is provided with sufficient information to understand why a proposed delegated power is considered to be appropriate and proportionate, and how that power is expected to be used.” That is certainly welcome. I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government fully accepts the financial memorandum recommendation and is working with the Finance and Public Administration Committee on how it will address the financial consequences of bills. The evidence shows that providing a definition is difficult, but the report has provided a sensible one. Framework bills should be the exception rather than the rule.”
“However, we will not be able to introduce proper legislation that we know will work and will lead to the outcomes that we require if we do not have the right financial memorandum attached. Martin Whitfield: Interestingly, is it not the case that, as the Scottish Government says in its response to the report, the Parliament must consider when to give delegated authority? If a crystal ball was required to see into the future, perhaps we would not give delegated authority in those circumstances. Roz McCall: I cannot really disagree with that statement, and I thank Martin Whitfield for making it.”
“I will mention this in my speech, but there is a challenge when it comes to framework legislation. For example, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, which we can imagine will be in effect for decades, can be used to manage items such as single-use cups, and a similar act was used to manage single-use vapes, but how could any committee of the Parliament, or any Government minister, predict what single-use items might be in use 30 years from now and how much funding might be needed to manage them? Roz McCall: I thank Lorna Slater for her question, which highlights the concerns that exist about the use of framework legislation. There is absolutely a question about how far into the future we will have to use our crystal ball to work out financial constraints.”
“I recognise the sadness that will be felt around the world at Pope Francis’s passing and I hope that his dream of a more peaceful and just world may yet come to be. 14:19”
“The Pope was a committed supporter of Palestine and publicly condemned Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. He called for a ceasefire in Gaza. He urged for humanitarian aid to be allowed into Gaza and for all captives to be freed. He emphasised that war is always a defeat—that every war is a defeat—and begged for the violence to stop. He often took an inclusive stance in the face of intolerance and prejudice. Although he never actually changed institutional or doctrinal opposition to issues of LGBTQ+ equality, women’s rights or reproductive choice, he did make bold steps to move the Church in a more inclusive direction, allowing informal blessings of same-sex unions and broadening the role of women.”
“I offer my condolences and those of the Scottish Green Party to the Catholic community in Scotland and around the world following the passing of Pope Francis. The first non-European Pope in more than a thousand years, he was known for his determination to be a voice for the poor. In particular, he recognised climate change as a global problem with significant consequences and he recognised the harms of the developed world’s addiction to consumption. Pope Francis called on the world to join the fight against climate change, writing in a papal encyclical letter that the science of climate change is clear and that the Catholic Church views climate change as a moral issue that must be addressed in order to protect the earth and everyone on it.”
“Michael Marra: Will the member take an intervention? Lorna Slater: Very briefly. Michael Marra: Does the member recognise that the budget for this financial year will go up as a result of the spring statement? Lorna Slater: I would like to see the numbers on that, because we have heard of real-terms cuts from the minister today. The UK Government has made choices. It could invest in the green economy, tax great wealth and remove subsidies for polluters. Instead of doing those things, Rachel Reeves has chosen to make life harder for those who are already struggling. Next year, Scotland’s electorate will have its chance to decide whether it approves of that choice. I hope that, someday soon, it will have its chance to decide whether it wants those decisions to be made by Westminster at all. 16:52”
“The Resolution Foundation has said that the current Parliament will be among the worst on record for living standards, and all members will know from their constituents that the cost of living is at the top of their concerns. Yet, we have a Labour Government that is choosing to turn the screws on the sick and disabled instead of the super-wealthy. When the UK decides to cut spending, Scotland’s budget gets cut. Every member of the chamber should be angry about that—not just the fact that Scotland cannot fully control its budget, but the fact that we cannot plan ahead and the fact that Scottish budgets that we vote into law can be blown away like dust in the wind by a change of UK Government policy. Day after day in the chamber we hear about the challenges of tight budgets, and the spring statement turns the screws on Scotland as well.”