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 5 of 9.
“That would be very challenging for the chief inspector. I will give way. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way and for the comments that she has made. If it is not for the chief inspector to establish whether the establishment is upholding its duty of care, who is it for? Jenny Gilruth: There are clear requirements in relation to the role of local authorities. We need to be mindful of potentially cutting across the statutory responsibilities of local authorities. A final point on amendment 233 relates to its potential for cutting across reserved areas of health and safety at work when it comes to duty of care and employees. For those reasons, I strongly urge members not to support amendment 233.”
“I continue to believe that its provisions are not appropriate for the chief inspector and that the provisions that were voted for at stage 2, which emphasise the chief inspector’s focus on child protection and safeguarding, will go a long way towards meeting what appears to be the policy objective of the amendment. However, it will be for the chief inspector to decide how to deliver on the new provision. Pam Duncan-Glancy: [Made a request to intervene.] Jenny Gilruth: If I can make some progress, I will be happy to bring in Pam Duncan-Glancy. In addition, amendment 233 appears to imply that an assessment of a duty of care must take place in every inspection that involves an educational establishment, including every thematic or focused inspection—for example, on behaviour—as well as those on individual establishments.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I welcome Pam Duncan- Glancy’s amendment 231, on notice of an inspection, which aligns well with the principles of transparency and equity and avoids some of the issues that her similar amendment had in that space at stage 2. As such, therefore, I am happy to support it. I thank Ross Greer for agreeing to work with me on amendment 232. It is a helpful amendment that will mean there is a strong focus on the implementation of children’s rights in the chief inspector’s approach to inspection. I will therefore support it. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 233 echoes similar amendments that were lodged by Katy Clark at stage 2, which were not pressed.”
“Everything in the bill should be about raising standards in our schools. With that in mind, most especially post-Covid, given that so many young people missed out on positive educational experiences, it should be about directing our attention not only to structures that will raise attainment but to those that will reward achievement in our schools. To that end, I believe that we should give inspectors every opportunity to reward schools that have strong extracurricular and enrichment programmes. For me and most other members, that should include outdoor education, which inspectors should have the opportunity to inspect.”
“That was my whole reason for delaying. I would have thought that it was better to have accurate figures as the number 1 priority.”
“In the letter that the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee wrote to the cabinet secretary on 14 May, it was made abundantly clear that the committee had significant concerns about the very late publication of the MTFS in the last week of term, which delays the scrutiny process for two months. Does she recognise the serious implications of late publication and its effects on scrutiny, forecasting and policy making? Shona Robison: In my letter to the committee, I recognised that the situation was less than ideal, but it was driven by the fact that we needed to see the numbers in the UK spending review. It is as well that we waited to see those, because, compared with the actuality of the UK spending review, there has been a deterioration on the forecasts that we and the SFC made.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of any plans to introduce continuous alcohol monitoring technology for offenders across Scotland. (S6O-04842)”
“Amendment 164 disagreed to. Section 25—Publication of documents Amendments 165 to 167 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to. Amendment 168 not moved. After section 25 Amendment 169 moved—[Willie Rennie]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 169 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Richard Leonard: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Sorry—my app would not connect. I would have abstained. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Leonard. I will make sure that that vote is recorded.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. It was the same for me, and I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Smith. I will make sure that that vote is recorded. For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) 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) [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) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 22, Against 96, Abstentions 0.”
“That work is of course reprogrammed into 2025-26, so whether there is a delay or not, it does not affect the amount of work that gets done. There is also a rail services underspend: Network Rail has underspent £22 million on operations, maintenance and renewals. That is driven by the rephasing of national Network Rail programmes, where costs are allocated to the Scotland region, although it is obviously something that we carry out ourselves.”
“In relation to the answer that the minister gave to Kenny Gibson when he asked about infrastructure, why specifically is there a £72 million underspend in the transport portfolio when there are so many pressing issues, such as the dualling of the A9 and various other upgrades? Ivan McKee: The £72 million capital underspend in transport and the £27 million underspend on the trunk road network reflect forecasts across a range of programmes, including the M8 Woodside viaduct propping project, that are facing a number of challenges through the financial year because of the complexities of those works. If Liz Smith has not gone to visit those works, I encourage her to do so in order to learn about the challenges that doing that work in a city centre location presents to the excellent teams that are carrying it forward.”
“However, I am aware from our engagement with the chair of the SFC that wider work is currently happening across the UK to look at the strengthening of governance in institutions, and I have committed that we will engage with the SFC to that end.”
“Given all that has happened, does the cabinet secretary consider that a case will be made to review the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016, about which the Parliament deliberated very long and hard? Jenny Gilruth: The historic passage of that legislation was a topic of discussion at Cabinet this morning, which is why I hear the First Minister chuckling at Liz Smith’s point. I have not had that case presented to me thus far. I discussed the issue at length with the chair of the SFC yesterday and with Mr Dey, and we also discussed it with the SFC last week in relation to governance changes. The SFC’s view, and that of Pamela Gillies, is that enough guidance is in place.”
“The second aspect is enabling a shift in resources to a preventative budget. Everyone is incentivised to maximise their budgets for their part of the silo in the here and now, and they are measured on how they do that. However, that means that we can lose perspective on ensuring that there is preventative spending. Indeed, that is what has stymied our efforts in that respect so far. With the numbers that we have published today, our statement makes it clear that the biggest savings will come from ensuring that we get prevention right. There are some good examples of that, but there is an awful lot more that we can do. The way in which we currently structure preventative budgeting within the public sector largely blocks that work.”
“This is the sixth debate and statement that I have sat through on public sector reform, and it just shows that the finance committee has been calling for real action for a very long time now. What one structural change coming out of the statement will make a real difference to public sector reform? Ivan McKee: There are many things, as there are 18 different workstreams, but I will highlight the two most important aspects. First, we need public body leaders to focus on being collaborative. As our statement indicates, that is all about how we recruit those leaders, how we hold them accountable and how we change the culture to ensure that they focus on making the whole system work, instead of focusing on how individual parts of the system function, which is suboptimal.”
“I think that we have to look at the areas of universal payments in which, quite clearly, the payments are not all being taken up. That is an area of overspend. It is also a case in which we should be targeting those who are most in need and not giving out a whole range of benefits to people who do not necessarily need them. That is a way forward and, on that point, I will finish. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next debate, to allow front-bench teams to change. Defence Sector (Economic Contribution)”
“When her Tory Government was in office this time last year, the rate was 22.3 per cent, so it is lower in Scotland now than it was when the Tories were in office down in England. Liz Smith: There are two points there. Economic inactivity is the key issue. As Willie Rennie rightly pointed out— Ivan McKee: [Inaudible.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, please. Liz Smith: What the minister said from a sedentary position is not correct in relation to the balance of the Scottish economy against the UK economy. Ivan McKee: Those are the numbers. Liz Smith: I am sure that we can debate that offline—I have gone with the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s statistics. On the question of universal payments, the minister asked me what I would do.”
“I throw back to the cabinet secretary—I have argued this with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice—that we have to have a debate about universal policy, because there are areas of universal policy that give benefits to people who could easily afford to pay for some of those benefits themselves. That is not how the welfare system should work: it should be about lifting up those who are in particular need and targeting those who— Ivan McKee: Will Liz Smith take an intervention? Liz Smith: I am not sure that there is time—I am about to finish. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Very briefly, minister. Ivan McKee: I am interested to hear who specifically Liz Smith would intend to target with that measure. Also, while I am on my feet, I want to let her know that the economic inactivity rate in Scotland at the moment is 21.6 per cent.”
“The Scottish Government needs to waken up to the fact that, for a long period of time, all of its policy development—especially when it comes to welfare spend—has been all about a big state. That approach is not working for Scotland. As several of my colleagues have argued this afternoon, we are getting less while paying more. That simply cannot go on. I finish on a point that was raised, interestingly, by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which said that it is absolutely imperative that we have a proper debate about universalism. The Scottish Government, with its social contract, is absolutely in thrall to the principle of universalism, but we clearly cannot afford that universal principle in the area of welfare spend. The cabinet secretary has often asked me what we would cut.”
“Every figure that we look at tells us that it is bloated. I want to come back to a point that was made in the chamber some months ago. During the Covid pandemic, we all got used to the state bailing us out. At the time, that was absolutely fine and correct. However, that expectation is still with us—people still expect the state to do all the work for the Scottish economy. That is not good enough, because it is not solving the problems that we need to address. We need to attend to the economic inactivity in this country. Willie Rennie said that that was the most important problem; it is. We need to get people back to work. We need to get people to take personal responsibility for their lives and not expect the state to do everything.”
“Liz Smith: Daniel Johnson made a very relevant point about the extent of the growth of the Scottish economy over a period of time. The economy’s growth over time is the key issue that analysts are talking about. I pay tribute to the Deputy First Minister, who made a very interesting speech at Panmure house two weeks ago, in which she identified that a top priority was ensuring that there is much better collaboration between the public and private sectors. That is exactly what we must do to stimulate the growth that is so sadly missing. That is an important part of what is required, and I hope that that is now part of Scottish Government policy. If it is not, we will have even more difficulties in paying for public services. The public sector is bloated—there is no question about that.”
“They have highlighted the failure to deliver sustained economic growth; concerns over tax structures, especially differentials; and issues with the delivery of more efficient public services, which, as we know, is a subject that has been exercising the mind of the Finance and Public Administration Committee for many months— although I am not sure that members would have got that impression from what the committee’s convener said in his speech. The bottom line is that Scotland has not been creating the growth that it desperately needs to create to pay for the increasing demands on public services. Senior figures in business—people such as Sandy Begbie—are all telling us— Ivan McKee: If what Liz Smith has said is the case, can she explain why, last year, the Scottish economy grew faster than the UK economy?”
“I am not usually someone who gets confused, but—my goodness—I am confused today. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government is very fond of asking Opposition parties to spell out exactly what we would do differently, but, when we do, she objects. She dismisses all our accusations of SNP waste, but she has now admitted that we are right. As for Lorna Slater’s speech, I have to say that I am very glad that it has been a short debate. I will set the debate in context by acknowledging some of the fundamental weaknesses in the Scottish economy, which have been much debated by the independent analysts. As well as flagging up the extent of the fiscal predicament in which the Scottish Government finds itself, the analysts have made it clear that that is largely a result of the Scottish Government’s own decisions.”
“The Conservatives proposed almost £1 billion in tax cuts last year in advance of the budget, and the impact of that approach on our essential public services, including our NHS, would be profound. Our progressive approach to tax underpins the entire Scottish budget, allowing us to support the most generous social contract in any part of the UK, which includes things such as free prescriptions, free higher education and support such as the Scottish child payment, all of which would be put at risk with the Conservatives’ contrasting income tax proposals, which would seek to reverse our progressive approach and give the greatest tax cut to the top 25 per cent of income tax payers.”
“In Mr Hoy’s speech, he spelt out exactly what measures the Conservatives are going to take. Why can the cabinet secretary not admit that? Shona Robison: We know the standard of what is provided by the Tories—unfunded tax cuts made on the back of a fag packet. We will take no lessons from a party that destroyed the economy. Many members on the Conservative benches supported Liz Truss and her economic policies, which hard-pressed householders are still paying for through their mortgage payments. We have had Tory economic policy during the years— [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Johnson, please do not. Shona Robison: Michael Marra seems to want to defend that for some strange reason.”
“We recognise that challenge Finally, the easiest way to deal with those challenges is for the UK Government to follow the principles that it claims to have and scrap the two- child cap and its proposals to cut disabled benefits. That would take away the challenges that Liz Smith points to.”
“Liz Smith is also right to say that some of the challenges around the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecasts of the cost of social security result from Scottish Government decisions that have been taken to keep children out of poverty despite the two-child cap, and from the UK Government’s determination to push children into poverty by reducing the spend on disabled people. We have made those choices to protect disabled people and children because we need to protect them from the effects of poverty. Those decisions will be set out in the work that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has taken forward on the sustainability of our finances.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: On the last point, a number of children will be brought into the two- child cap because of the way that it brings in more families as the children age. That is why there is a difference in the numbers. I take Liz Smith’s point about dealing with economic inactivity. That is why the Deputy First Minister and other ministers have been resolute in our determination to assist people who are economically inactive to move into employment with the help of employability schemes or childcare schemes. However, it is important that we do that by supporting people out of economic inactivity, instead of punishing them for having children, which is exactly what the two-child cap does.”
“Secondly, how does the cabinet secretary respond to the claims from some independent economic analysts that the mitigation will create perverse incentives against working, at a time when Scotland is already facing significantly higher percentages of economic inactivity than elsewhere? Does she think that that might be the reason why a lot of members of the public support the two-child cap? Finally, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has calculated that the mitigation will cost £156 million in 2026-27 and that that will rise to £199 million— which is a slightly different figure from the one that the cabinet secretary just gave—over the period to 2029-30. Can the cabinet secretary explain why a 27.5 per cent increase is expected in that short period of time?”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of her statement. I put on the record, again, that the Scottish Conservatives, like all other parties in the chamber, absolutely see child poverty as an important issue. I will concentrate my questions on the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s most recent report. First, the SFC says that the Scottish Government’s mitigation of the two-child cap would be one of two major factors contributing to the widening gap between social security spend in Scotland and available funding. Where will cuts be made to pay for that mitigation?”
“Secondly, in particular, the very high level of illegal immigration is a major concern, as is the associated fiscal cost of accommodation and public service provision. Thirdly, I quite strongly oppose a Scottish system of immigration, because of the inherent complications—although I will come to another aspect of that in a moment. However, first, I come to the hard facts. Scotland has a very significant demographic challenge: an ageing population, as the Deputy First Minister said, a declining birth rate and worryingly high rates of economic inactivity.”
“I greatly welcome the Deputy First Minister’s tone, because, as we all know, far too often, migration debates are highly contentious and framed by economic, social and security concerns. Sadly, nowadays, they are often framed by misunderstandings, negative perceptions that are sometimes very far removed from reality and, worst of all in this age of Trump and Farage, by increasingly unhelpful and damaging rhetoric that can border on racism and which clearly helps absolutely no one at all. My contribution will be based very much on the facts—I hope that it will be an honest and open appraisal of the current challenges—and on my long-standing interest in labour market economics. However, before I begin that analysis, I want to be very clear about three things. First, I agree that the current system of immigration controls is not working.”
“We are quite concerned that the discourse around migration seems to be focused solely on reducing numbers instead of focusing on the needs of our economy and our diverse communities. That is what a rural visa would do— it would have us working very closely with employers to identify need.”
“I have enough respect for my opponents across the chamber to know that we will approach the issue by understanding the multifaceted nature of the challenges, but it is the package of actions that we take that will ease the strain. In rural and island areas, there is a requirement to support housing, to deliver on key infrastructure projects and to improve transport links. It is also key—this is what I want to talk about today—that we call for tailored regional migration routes, such as a rural visa pilot. It is interesting that the development of a rural visa pilot enjoyed support from a number of different industries and sectors—indeed, at the time, it had support from across the Parliament as well.”
“I do not need to remind the cabinet secretary of how important the rural depopulation issue is within all of this. That is not just a matter of migration policy; it is a collective policy issue that requires efforts from a whole lot of areas to encourage more people to stay in their local communities. Does the cabinet secretary agree with that? Kate Forbes: I absolutely agree. The National Records of Scotland, among others, forecasts double-digit reductions in population, particularly across coastal and island communities. That focuses on the working-age population, which masks the fact that we also have an ageing population. Reversal of the depopulation trend and the restoration of economic vibrancy will not result from a single action.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is the same for me. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Smith. I will make sure that that is recorded.”
“We also want to crowd in more private finance, because the private sector has more of a view about this. That leads me to the end of my remarks, but I have enjoyed the debate, nevertheless. 16:13”
“I absolutely agree with Michelle Thomson on that. One of the most important things for that to happen is to ensure that we are accountable for public money. That is critical in the Parliament— we must have more accountability. Michelle Thomson and I sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and we are always asking for that. Does she agree that it would help if we increased accountability for where public money is spent to ensure that it is spent successfully? Michelle Thomson: I am always in favour of oversight and accountability, but I am making a separate point. One can have accountability and a clear line of sight on funding, but, specifically on the matter of entrepreneurship and innovation, we must accept that we need to increase our threshold for risk. That will include public sector funding.”
“I once again give Liz Smith reassurance that I think that data can play an important part in evaluating the impact of a policy, as we have discussed. It can also play an important part in ensuring that policies genuinely deliver for people by allowing us to target our support. For example, we can use data to know who is best placed to be eligible for the Scottish child payment or the other payments that are available through Social Security Scotland. Housing Emergency 7.”
“The cabinet secretary knows that we had very extensive engagement on the question of child poverty at this morning’s meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. One thing that came out of the meeting was the fact that there needs to be much greater use of data to ascertain the effectiveness of policy. Will the cabinet secretary provide assurance that there will be greater co-operation between the Scottish Government and local authorities to ensure that we get the right data? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Liz Smith’s question alludes to the committee’s discussion about the importance of data sharing and of using data at local authority, Scottish Government and, indeed, UK Government levels to ensure that we deliver the best services and provide support for people.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support regional national health service boards to tackle any backlogs of complaints. (S6O-04715)”
“I firmly believe that our committees are at their most effective when we work collectively, without fear or favour towards the Government, and when we are creative and persistent about achieving real change within our remits. Convening a committee is an utter privilege. It is also not without its pressures and demands, but they are made so much easier by the support that is provided by all our members. For that support, I extend my grateful thanks. 15:34”
“In this parliamentary session, the Criminal Justice Committee has seen relatively few membership changes. Continuity with our members, clerks and researchers has meant that we have built up a good understanding of our remit and what needs to be done. Richard Leonard articulated that point well in his contribution. We have also been innovative in working with two other committees to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s response to tackling drug harm and reducing the number of drug deaths, and in supporting the work of its national mission on drugs. That cross-committee work supported a people’s panel process that brought together members of the public to consider what Scotland should do differently to reduce the number of drug deaths.”
“I cannot talk about our committee’s work programme without commending our clerking team, without whom I would certainly be lost. Nothing is too much trouble for them, and the huge workload that the team carries to make our committee work so well is not lost on any of our members. The support that we receive from our Scottish Parliament information centre, communications, and participation and communities team—PACT—colleagues is second to none, and we are indebted to them all. It is worth noting the sensitivity of some of our committee’s work, which has involved our taking evidence from highly vulnerable witnesses. The complex and detailed support that the PACT team provides to make such evidence sessions happen ensures that we get the best evidence from all our witnesses.”
“As its convener, I have been keen that our committee is one that, when possible, seeks consensus across political parties and that, regardless of its members’ political affiliations, considers matters in a fair way, with a focus on improving Scotland’s criminal justice system. I believe that we have done that. I believe, too, that, in addition to working collaboratively, effective committees have excellent relationships and dialogue with the stakeholders and individuals who are relevant to their remit, and that they respond to them by tackling their concerns. By being fleet of foot and creative, our committee has always been willing to find a way to make progress on an issue by considering evidence and, when appropriate, encouraging ministers to take action.”
“By that I mean that we are not frightened to criticise when improvements are needed, but we do so constructively by working with ministers and others on as much of a shared agenda as we can, across the parties. Our committee’s record demonstrates that. In no small part, that is due to all committee members being prepared—most of the time—to set aside party politics and seek to attain real change. That is so whether it be through our scrutiny of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which could make fundamental changes to our justice system, through seeking to improve the ways in which the mental wellbeing of our police officers is supported or through supporting calls to end Friday releases from prison.”
“I agree with the point that Audrey Nicoll has made. Nonetheless, does she accept that, if there are pre-prepared questions, there is a temptation for some members not to do the required homework or to think for themselves and seek out the most important points? Audrey Nicoll: I agree. It is the responsibility of each member to consider their own lines of questioning. However, one of the advantages of having prepared questions is that it ensures that we take evidence across a broad spectrum of provisions, particularly when we scrutinise bills. Even as a member of the Government party, I have always taken the view that our committee is a critical friend of that Government.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Smith. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“Such an approach has to happen for additional support for learning, too. It is time that we properly did something about GIRFEC and supporting every child in the context of additional support for learning. 16:05”
“I say gently to the Labour Party that another reason why the assault of VAT on the independent sector is so misguided is that some families with important additional support needs have been forced to leave that sector. Many teachers, parents and, indeed, pupils rightly raise that the overstretch in mainstreaming often means that pupils with additional support needs get labelled as badly behaved. As Willie Rennie said, that is sometimes true, but it is more often not true—they are not the same thing, which we should note when considering the best interests of every child. Last week, I was grateful that the Education, Children and Young People Committee supported one of my amendments to the Education (Scotland) Bill, which was designed to further broaden the inspection process in all our schools.”