Liz Smith
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“For many years, I have come to this debate conflicted, well understanding several of the key points raised by those who support assisted dying, partly based on my own family experience, but also understanding the key points in the case against.”
“As a result, I worry about the implications in relation to coercive situations within families, who may put pressure on vulnerable relatives to end their lives, perhaps for financial reasons in increasingly difficult fiscal situations or for reasons that suit their circumstances rather than those of the patient.”
“I wish to say what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech: “Nobody could possibly doubt the far-reaching implications of the most appalling human tragedy at Grenfell tower in 2017, nor the importance of ensuring that nothing like that can ever happen again.” It is absolutely right that measures are put in place to improve building stand…”
“As the minister knows from stage 2, I have concerns about whether people involved in the conversion of historic buildings will face specific unintended consequences as a result of the imposition of the building safety levy, mainly because projects of that nature are not usually speculative and they tend to be a more expensive way of produ…”
“That must include the medical profession’s commitment to saving lives. I continue to worry about a situation whereby we hand ultimate power to doctors, with the possibility that voluntary action could lead to involuntary action.”
“It is on occasions such as these, when the matter that is under consideration is so challenged by complex ethical, moral, legal and practical questions, that I have come to know the Scottish Parliament at its best. We saw that last week and I believe that we are seeing it again this evening.”
The complete record
Every one of 413 lines we hold for Liz Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“I agree entirely with what the minister has just said. Nonetheless, I was at a conference at Edinburgh Napier University on Monday at which people were saying that the number of older people who need to be upskilled is substantial, and growing. What measures is the Government putting in place with those agencies to ensure that there is that upskilling as well as the initial training? Ben Macpherson: That is a significant point that gets to the heart of the skills agenda that we are undertaking through a programme and a set of primary legislative changes. For Opposition members to state that there is only one thing happening, which is a piece of primary legislation, is incorrect. The Deputy First Minister and I are progressing a whole programme of work that does not require primary legislation to provide more skills opportunities.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s recently published “Scottish median incomes fact sheet”. (S6O-05169)”
“We must develop an approach that is both robust and adaptable to ensure that organisations work in a transparent and effective manner. 15:57”
“I know that there are good reasons for that— flexibility is important—but I would be interested in exploring the introduction of good practice guidance or a similar mechanism. I also echo the concerns that were expressed by the Greens about post-legislative scrutiny. They made some really good points. In written evidence, they said to the committee: “Many laws are passed, targets set and then forgotten, resulting in a failure to assess their effectiveness.” The same applies to newly formed public bodies and non-ministerial offices, for which there is limited follow-up, which allows problems to go unchecked. We are stewards for a brief time, but we must think longer term. Proper scrutiny protects our communities.”
“We get a lot of support in Parliament, but sometimes, on very niche issues, we need more. Secondly, there is a real danger that transitions between elections and changes in committee membership lead to important issues being forgotten or momentum in inquiries lost. As I see it, there is at present no mechanism for passing on work in stronger terms than a recommendation in a legacy report. Even locating minutes from previous sessions, which I have tried to do, is really difficult. Although we must allow flexibility, effective scrutiny of public bodies is too important to be lost or delayed during those changeovers. At present, standing orders and framework agreements with non-ministerial offices are not at all prescriptive.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Evelyn Tweed: Yes. Liz Smith: I entirely agree with what the member is saying. Is she also concerned about the fact that some of our agencies that have to report to the Scottish Parliament, particularly commissioners, cite that they are very seldom—if at all, in one case—brought before a committee? Evelyn Tweed: I entirely agree with Liz Smith on that point. We have many pressures on us as members, but we need to get people in here so that we can scrutinise those bodies and commissioners appropriately. I absolutely agree. As members, we often deal with highly paid professional representatives of the very bodies that we are charged with scrutinising. Sometimes, we need more time and more independent expert support.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the validity of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’s analysis of Scottish income tax statistics, including the July 2025 outturn publication. (S6O-05066)”
“On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I put on record our thanks to David Torrance for lodging his amendments, because there is an important point of principle here. I also pay great tribute to the Burntisland community for the way in which it has gone about its very helpful campaign in flagging up all the issues; it has done a wonderful job in that respect. It speaks volumes that the councillors and the MSPs agree on the issue. Nonetheless, it is clear from what the member said that there are issues. We understand that there are potentially legal issues that need to be explored. I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary exactly what those are and how they can be dealt with in order to proceed, so that we ensure that the Burntisland community has justice when it comes to the whole issue.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of it being Scottish women and girls in sport week, what financial progress has been made against its 2021-22 programme for government commitment to double its investment in sport to £100 million by the end of the current parliamentary session. (S6O-05045)”
“If it does not do that, it will not only badly let down another generation of Scottish students but seriously undermine Scotland’s competitiveness. Ministers need to bear in mind that international trends show clearly that the further and higher education systems that are the most successful in focusing on teaching and research and the best educational outcomes, rather than on governance, are those that are at the greatest arm’s length from Government. That is not a political point; it is one that reflects what works best in education. On that note, I support the motion in the name of Murdo Fraser. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on backing Scotland’s colleges and apprenticeships. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business. Secure Accommodation”
“We simply cannot have a situation in which 22 out of 24 colleges expect to spend more than their income this year, and in which the funding for a college student is a little more than £2,500 lower than it is for a higher education student. I completely understand that there cannot be full parity, but neither should there be such a huge gap in income. Likewise, under some apprenticeship frameworks, colleges are being subcontracted to deliver training, but only 40 per cent of the Scottish Government funding reaches the college that is delivering the training. That just cannot be right. For the sake of boosting the quality of Scottish tertiary and higher education, we on the Conservative benches are pleading with the Scottish Government to completely rethink its priorities and to be serious about the need to reform the funding model.”
“We know that more than half of businesses are experiencing skills shortages, with a high percentage of those being very pessimistic about the next five years. Nor is there any policy logic in persistently increasing tax levels in Scotland, despite the evidence of employers—whether they are large- scale businesses such as Tesco or our smallest businesses in our high streets—or what the Fraser of Allander Institute and Scottish Chambers of Commerce said yesterday. It is clear that those tax policies are hindering our capacity to drive growth. What is really important, and has been for a long time, is that the funding model for tertiary and higher education is not sustainable and needs to change, as Michael Marra and Lorna Slater said.”
“It makes no sense at all to cut their budget in real terms by 20 per cent since 2021 and to strip out £141 million in real terms from the Scottish Funding Council. That is at a time when the overall block grant has been going up, despite what Mr McLennan said. As has been said, colleges and other providers wanted 34,000 places in 2024-25, and the Scottish Government gave them 25,500. Scottish Engineering tells us that it thinks that a fifth of the skills demand has been unmet due to real-terms funding cuts. There is no policy logic to that at all, just as there was no policy logic in the SNP budget of two years ago, which cut the economy portfolio by 8.3 per cent in real terms, including cuts to employability and enterprise support and tourism.”
“In other words, the SNP, with its financial constraints on colleges, is preventing some people from taking up work. We have problems at Forth Valley College’s Alloa campus, which is in the kind of area where we desperately need new training opportunities, and Fife College and the University of the Highlands and Islands are harbouring serious concerns about long-term sustainability. All of that puts in jeopardy valuable opportunities that should be designed to stimulate growth. If we are serious about addressing economic inactivity, improving skills and retraining and creating a more innovative and flexible labour market, it should go without saying that our colleges should be a priority for Government.”
“One said: “To think that the sector could operate or indeed maintain provision after having our budgets slashed by 10 per cent last year was challenging, but to have them reduced again ... is just baffling.” That college principal was Miles Dibsdall of Telford College and he said that at the Education and Culture Committee back in 2011. That is well before Brexit, yet, since then, despite all the rhetoric that we have had from various higher and further education ministers, we have seen an erosion of college sustainability. John Vincent, the principal of Glasgow Clyde College, told the cross-party group on colleges and universities just last week that demand for apprenticeship places is very strong but that it cannot be met because of Scottish Government cuts.”
“Just recently, the Deputy First Minister described colleges as the “engines of innovation” while she was announcing new schemes to help to turn research initiatives into high-growth businesses. That point was strongly welcomed by Scotland’s chief entrepreneur, Ana Stewart. That was on the back of the Deputy First Minister’s Panmure house speech in June, when she spoke very well about the need for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors to try to harness Scotland’s true investment and economic growth potential. As Willie Rennie reminded us, colleges are hugely important when it comes to stimulating economic growth. That is why, last week, Audit Scotland described colleges as a vital anchor in local communities and regional economies. Let us hear what college principals are saying.”
“The impact of Brexit and the United Kingdom Government’s migration system has undoubtedly added to labour market pressures—that is a fact— and we continue to make the case for a more flexible and responsive approach to migration that reflects Scotland’s specific needs.”
“We are also working with regional economic partnerships, which are really important, to build on what is already working well and to strengthen regional skills planning. Our goal is to empower regions to deliver on their economic and social ambitions while contributing to national priorities. We want the post-school system to be more responsive to regional needs, and we are building on the strong foundations that have been set through the Scottish Funding Council’s regional tertiary pathfinders programme, along with other local initiatives. However, there are limits to what we can do on our own. We do not operate in a bubble.”
“It also states that we note the terms of the Audit Scotland report. We know that there is more work to do. We are committed to a new national approach to skills planning, which will be led by the Scottish Government. Its aim will be to better align post-school education and training pathways with Scotland’s long-term skills needs, especially in key sectors of our economy that support the move to net zero. We are working closely with the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland to take that forward. Together, we have agreed a model for skills planning that we will shape through engagement with colleges, universities, employers and regional partners. That collaborative approach means that we can move quickly and make real progress.”
“As Murdo Fraser said, it is encouraging to hear that from the minister. However, how does he square those words with the 20 per cent real-terms cut in the budget for colleges? Ben Macpherson: I will come on to the specifics in due course, but, in response to Ms Smith, and in general terms, I emphasise that our colleges, employers, universities and trading providers are key to helping people to gain the skills that they need. Collectively, we members of the Scottish Government greatly value their contribution, especially in delivering a record number of apprenticeships and in helping so many school leavers to move on to positive destinations. Our amendment sets out our record on young people and others achieving positive destinations, as well as the significant investment that has been made this financial year.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether NHS Tayside should exempt legal claims by former patients of Professor Sam Eljamel from the three-year time bar which is currently in place. (S6F-04345)”
“Ms Smith is aware of the concerns that the Government has laid out, and I hope that we can get to the bottom of some of those, or find solutions for some of them, through stage 2 amendments. I cannot necessarily advise how long that will take. However, as I have said, I am very willing to engage with both Ms Smith and the associated groups that will be relevant to those concerns in order to find a way through at stage 2.”
“First, can she give me a little bit of a guide as to when she thinks that the Scottish Government will be able to start the discussions that have to take place at stage 2? Secondly, how long does she envisage that process taking? Natalie Don-Innes: I am probably not able to give definitive answers. On when I want those discussions to start, I am more than happy to contact Ms Smith following the statement to get arrangements in place to have a follow-up meeting about the matters that we discussed at our meeting last week. On the first point, the answer is therefore as soon as possible. On the second point, which was about how long we think that deliberations at stage 2 will take, again I cannot give a definitive answer.”
“I am also delighted by the commitment, which I received at an extremely positive meeting last week, that the Scottish Government and I, and members across the chamber, can work together to ensure that we lodge the best possible amendments so that we can, I hope, pass the bill at stage 3. I am very aware that there is still an awful lot of work to be done on the bill, but I have to say that I think that today is a very good day for young people right across Scotland and for the outdoor education sector. It is also a very good day for MSPs right across the political spectrum who have worked so incredibly hard to persuade ministers as to why the bill is so necessary in building the resilience of our young people. I will ask the minister two questions.”
“I apologise profusely for not being in the chamber in person. The reason for that—the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s visit to the Lithuanian Parliament—is a rather different one from those that are normally given. I thank the minister for the letter that she sent me this morning and for the statement. I am very grateful to her on both counts. I am obviously delighted that the Scottish Government has seen fit to ensure that the will of Parliament is supported and that it will now lodge the necessary financial resolution to allow the bill to proceed to stage 2.”
“I am very much looking forward to meeting the cabinet secretary and the minister later this afternoon to discuss the bill. In relation to discussions with the outdoor education sector, what information has the Scottish Government received about my proposals for ways to reduce the cost of the bill? Natalie Don-Innes: I have said before that I might not have discussed those exact proposals with the outdoor education sector due to the timing of the meetings. However, I have confirmed to Liz Smith that the proposals that she has made to reduce some of the implications of the bill around affordability and readiness are very welcome and are helping to inform the decision on the financial resolution.”
“Just for parliamentary transparency, I wonder whether I could have confirmation on the record that, in line with the letter that I received from the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise on 4 September, there will be a ministerial statement next week on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, even if the Minister for Parliamentary Business cannot confirm the time for that. I put on the record that I am grateful to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise for arranging to meet me tomorrow afternoon. 16:26”
“In view of the fact that stalking offences often involve a perpetrator who is fixated on the victim and who may seek to target their family to continue to abuse the victim, amendment 3 would extend that power to cover people who are convicted of stalking. I know that members from across the chamber share a commitment to strengthening protections for victims. I move amendment 3.”
“Amendment 3 would extend the duty that currently applies in domestic abuse cases—in which the courts must always consider whether to make an NHO to protect the victim, without the need for the prosecutor to make an application for such an order—so that it would also apply in all cases involving sexual offences, stalking and intimate image abuse. By requiring the court to consider an NHO in those cases, the amendment would ensure that the court must actively consider in every case whether an NHO is required to protect the victim and that it must make such an order unless it considers that it is not necessary to do so to protect the victim. In addition, members might be aware that NHOs in domestic abuse cases can make provision in favour of a child who normally resides with the victim or the perpetrator, or both.”
“Amendment 55 agreed to. Section 64—Applications to admit certain evidence relating to sexual offences: rights of complainers Amendments 56 and 57 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. After section 64 20:00 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 20 is on non-harassment orders and protective orders made outwith Scotland. Amendment 3, in the name of Sharon Dowey, is grouped with amendments 147, 147A, 148 to 151, 164 and 165. Sharon Dowey: Non-harassment orders are a vital tool in protecting victims from further harm. They can be used to prohibit an offender from contacting or approaching a victim and so enable the police to intervene to prevent further harassment, even where the offender’s behaviour might not otherwise constitute a criminal offence.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Smith. I will make sure that that is recorded. For 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) 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) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) 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) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) 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) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Abstentions Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 63, Against 48, Abstentions 1.”
“Does the First Minister agree that, when a bill is agreed to at stage 1, thereby reflecting the will of Parliament that it should proceed to stage 2, the Scottish Government has a democratic obligation to lodge a financial resolution to that bill?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Transport Scotland about motorway gantry signage. (S6O-04916)”
“Liz Smith: Fact 6 is that the business community does not believe the minister. 15:36”
“They want the Government—I know that the Deputy First Minister agrees with this— Ivan McKee: Will Liz Smith give way? Liz Smith: I will come back to the minister in a minute. They want there to be much better collaboration between the private and public sectors, and they want the Government to be serious about broadening the tax base, rather than taking an approach that is having detrimental impacts on our middle and higher earners. I will take a quick intervention from the minister. The Deputy Presiding Officer: It will have to be incredibly quick. Ivan McKee: I will rattle through some facts. Fact 4: we balance the budget every year. Fact 5: we have laid out such plans in the fiscal sustainability delivery plan. Fact 6— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We do not have time for this.”
“That approach has clearly failed when it comes to the public finances, most especially in Scotland, where the rise in the number of benefit claimants is deeply worrying. It has also failed because it has allowed a dangerous claim culture to develop. Far too many people believe that they are unfit to work when they are not. That is not good for the Scottish economy, and it is not good for society, either. Senior figures in the business community all say that Scotland is not performing nearly as well as it should be because there has been insufficient emphasis on growth and on creating better jobs. All along, they have watched the SNP Government prioritise the wrong things, which has detracted attention from policies that are proven to create growth.”
“Finally, it has been forced to admit that it cannot adopt the principle of universalism across the board, not just because universalism does not prioritise those who are most in need but because it is wholly unaffordable. I hope that that is at last a sign that the Scottish Government has finally woken up to the folly of the years that it has spent in the pursuit of universalism, whether in relation to benefits, prescriptions, university tuition or whatever, because its current policies are serving only to make that big black hole much bigger. I hope that that will also mean that we will finally address the widespread belief that it is the duty of the state to fix everything.”
“Inside all of that, there was a really interesting admission from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government at the Finance and Public Administration Committee last week, when she acknowledged that she was facing some tough decisions and that some areas of spending must be reined in. For example, in relation to free school meals, she said: “We will not be able to roll out the universal offer as far as we had perhaps initially wanted to ... we have to prioritise those children who are most in need.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 2 September 2025; c 34.] Finally, we have an admission from this Government that things have been spiralling out of control.”
“The trouble is that, with current demographic trends and a high incidence of economic inactivity, plus the fact that the Scottish economy has been seriously lagging behind the UK economy for more than a decade, Scotland has not been creating the growth that it desperately needs to pay for an increasingly dependent population. Ivan McKee: Will Liz Smith take an intervention? Liz Smith: I will not just now, minister. I will come back to you in a minute. Further, the Scottish Government has not been focused on getting people back into work, broadening the tax base or prioritising economic growth. The Government tells us that it is addressing the issue with public sector reform, a reduction in the public sector workforce and preventative measures to reduce long-term demand for welfare payments. As yet, we do not have the details.”
“I will begin by repeating three of the key facts that have underpinned contributions to the debate so far. Fact 1: by 2029-30, resource spending will be £2.6 billion above the available funds, and capital spending will be £2.1 billion above the available funds. Fact 2: social security payments in 2029-30 will rise to £8.8 billion from the current £6.8 billion in the current budget, which is a nearly 30 per cent increase in just four years. Fact 3: the economic performance gap is just over £1 billion. It is little wonder, then, that the Scottish Fiscal Commission and other forecasters are warning of serious long-term fiscal unsustainability.”
“Instead, it refuses to tax wealth properly, underfunds the NHS and lets polluters off the hook. Environmental taxation income is falling when it must instead rise in order to pay for the just transition. Scotland can choose differently. With independence, we can choose to close the wealth gap to redistribute wealth. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to bring your remarks to a close now, Ms Slater. Lorna Slater: We can invest in public services. We can make Scotland a fairer and greener country when it is an independent country. 15:15”
“As a total share of taxation and social contributions, the figure dropped from 8.4 per cent in 1997 to 4.5 per cent in 2024. That decline persists even as the climate emergency intensifies and recognised economists are calling for change. Overhauling tax powers to ensure that those who have profited from wrecking our climate pay for its clean-up is very reasonable and fair. How is it a just transition if ordinary workers are being asked to pay for the consequences of the actions of massive oil and gas corporations? This week, University of Oxford experts argued in the Financial Times that a land and property wealth tax is vital in order to “improve housing affordability” and ensure that rising land values benefit society, not just landowners. However, Westminster does not act.”
“Will Ms Slater take an intervention? Lorna Slater: I will carry on. Nearly 1.7 million children are affected by the two-child benefit cap. That policy has pushed about 350,000 children into poverty and 700,000 into deeper poverty. The gap between rich and poor is not theoretical. A cross-party commission estimated that scrapping the two-child cap, paired with benefit increases, could lift 4.2 million people out of poverty, including 2.2 million people in deep poverty. In environmental terms, the system is also failing us. Environmental taxes made up just 1.9 per cent of GDP in 2024. That was down from 2 per cent. You heard that correctly—during a climate crisis, the UK Government is collecting less in taxes through environmental measures.”
“Where on earth, then, is the logic of not pursuing the bill, at a time when many schools are suffering from weak attainment and attendance levels, poor behaviour and a deterioration in pupils’ mental wellbeing?”
“And going forward we will ensure that less-well off families do not face costs for curriculum related trips and activities and that all pupils are able to attend ‘rite of passage’ trips, such as P7 residentials.” That is in the SNP’s manifesto. Secondly, there is a growing and overwhelming body of evidence from young people themselves about the benefits of residential outdoor education. Those views have been rehearsed many times in the chamber and at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and they are cited in the many letters from young people to MSPs; they relate especially to improving attainment at school, attendance levels, behaviour and mental welfare.”
“The same was true at the wonderful new facilities at Loch Eil. Indeed, everywhere that I went, I found that there was the strongest possible desire to support young people, who would not otherwise get the opportunity for such an experience should those facilities not be there. I want to make it abundantly clear why I am so frustrated by the Scottish Government’s persistent intransigence on residential outdoor education and why I felt compelled to lodge the motion for debate. First, the Scottish National Party’s 2021 manifesto, similarly to those of the other parties, said: “Learning outside the classroom is an essential part of education. Children should not miss out simply because their parents cannot afford the cost. We will support schools to provide inclusive trips and activities for all and ensure consistent practice across Scotland.”
“I begin by thanking all those in the outdoor education sector for their outstanding commitment to our young people and for their unrelenting support throughout the passage of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill to date. In particular, I thank Nick March, Martin Davidson and Phil Thompson, who have been with me on this journey for three years. I start with PGL Dalguise in my region. In a particularly busy summer recess during which I visited several of our outdoor centres, I found that the focus was very much on inclusion and on the delivery of quality services for all our young people, including those with disability. While I was there, I saw remarkable outdoor climbing facilities and improvements across the board in accommodation for those with additional support needs.”
“I believe that all committees in the Parliament are under the same significant pressure and generally work to a standard laying period of 40 days. If members would find it helpful, I could list the similar types of documents that are subject to the 40-day laying period. However, that would take some time—and, in the interests of time, I will rest at that. 17:30”
“Sixty days is excessive and is not standard practice. One practical example is that the bill requires the chief inspector to consult the advisory council, ministers, representatives of educational establishments and, under amendment 236, teachers and college staff when preparing a plan, separately to laying it before the Parliament for consultation. Taken together, that might mean that the chief inspector becomes pressed into a shorter period of time to consider the representations that are made following consultation. I therefore ask Ross Greer not to move his amendments 237 and 238, which, I note, would not exclude recess or dissolution periods from the 40 days of the first plan, and I ask members to vote instead in support of my amendments 41 and 42, to ensure consistency with other reports when it comes to laying periods.”
“I thank Liz Smith for working with me on amendment 37, which takes the spirit of her successful stage 2 amendment on outdoor education and clarifies its scope. I am very happy to support that amendment. Although I appreciate Ross Greer’s valiant attempt to reduce the laying period for the first inspection plan to 40 days while leaving the rest at 60 days, I have lodged amendments to bring every plan back to 40 days. To Martin Whitfield’s point, those 40 days would exclude any recesses or dissolutions of more than four days. Forty days is a much more manageable and proportionate time period for operational purposes, but it is also very much in line with the time periods that are attached to numerous other plans. Indeed, for secondary legislation, it is the time that the committee has for considering statutory instruments.”