Miles Briggs
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Angela Constance: It was always going to be the case that the old hospital would continue to be used while the new hospital was being built, which means that important investment is required in that regard.”
“The Sunday Mail reported on 26 April that ministers had failed to sign off on the business case for the new Monklands hospital prior to the election, so it is important that the cabinet secretary publishes the information that Scottish ministers knew during that period and that she explains why there was no statement to the Parliament bef…”
“I am happy to furnish Mr Briggs with further information about the process. When we deal with any full business case, it is important that that is thoroughly examined and scrutinised, out of respect for those who have compiled it.”
“The Nuclear Industry Association estimates that Scotland’s civil nuclear industry could have supported more than 10,000 jobs if the sector had experienced the same growth as has been evident south of the border, in England. The Scottish Government must reflect on the opportunities that the country will miss out on in years to come.”
“Whatever views members may hold on the nuclear power sector, there should be broad agreement that Torness has been one of the most significant economic and industrial assets that our country has ever had.”
“With the ongoing instability in the middle east and the consequent volatility of global gas prices, households and businesses are vulnerable to price shocks. New nuclear energy would put energy back in our own hands, protect us from fossil fuel price volatility and deliver much-needed energy security.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Miles Briggs, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“He is an incredibly thoughtful and caring individual, who, I always find, remembers things about us and our families that we do not always remember ourselves. He is always checking in. That is one side of Douglas’s character that other colleagues probably have not had the opportunity to see in the rough and tumble of politics. I do not think that today will see Douglas blowing the whistle on his political career. I look forward to seeing him return to serve his community in Moray in the future in the Westminster Parliament. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer—you have been generous in allowing me additional time—I will say that the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at decision time. 15:15”
“We can look back and be proud of some of the opportunities that this Parliament took forward last week in relation to the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill and delivering the Promise. I also want to thank and pay tribute to my colleague Douglas Ross, who will be making his final speech in the Parliament. He has done a triple now: he has served as a councillor, an MP and an MSP. He was also our party leader—I am not sure whether that was something that he also enjoyed. I know that he has always put his community in Moray first. Many of us on the Conservative benches have been friends with Douglas and worked alongside him for many years. He might not thank me for saying this, but many people in the other parties probably do not see the true Douglas.”
“However, it is clear that there are some concerns out there. Although this bill, which I welcome, will pass tonight, those concerns have not all been answered, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will make sure that a response to those concerns is forthcoming. This is the final education debate of this session of Parliament, so I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who have worked on the education portfolios during their time in this Parliament, particularly Pam Duncan-Glancy, who has announced that she is not seeking re-election, and my colleague Roz McCall, who has worked on the education bills alongside me. There has been a lot of education legislation over the past year.”
“Many of us are wearing a little crown badge, which I am sure that people will be wondering about. All Beth’s work earned her the nickname “Queen Bee”, and the crown comes from that. I am very grateful for being sent one ahead of today’s debate. The cabinet secretary touched on guidance. What will be really important is how it is received and that it will be implemented in the true spirit of the bill. I have written to the cabinet secretary about the concerns of unions and those of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland about potential unintended consequences. I hope that, as soon as the guidance is published, it can be shared with all those who are involved. It is important that we and the teaching profession have confidence that common sense will always be looked at.”
“It is without doubt that it is only thanks to organisations such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and individuals such as Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger that we will see this bill become law. Beth began her campaign back in 2010. Work then began on a petition to the Scottish Parliament, which was lodged in 2015. I know that Beth and many of the campaigners have also acted as central contacts for many families who have faced similar traumatic situations. That is what has driven most of the work that they have undertaken in order to bring an end to restraint and seclusion. I am aware that Beth and other campaigners have undertaken huge amounts of investigation to try to understand the true scale of the problem and to demand action, which their Parliament is delivering today.”
“I, too, pay tribute to Daniel Johnson, who underestimates his role in this matter. Those of us who have attempted to take through or have taken through a private member’s bill in Parliament know the amount of work that that involves. I pay tribute to him and his office for their work on the bill, which is why we are at this point today. I also thank the non- Government bills unit—I see that the team is sitting at the back of the chamber today. They must be counting down the hours to our passes being deactivated, to be quite honest. They have done a power of work on many pieces of legislation that have, or have not, gone through in this session of Parliament.”
“I hope that every care-experienced young person who is watching or listening to the debate will see that their Parliament continues to work to progress towards delivering the Promise by 2030. I know that there is frustration at the lack of progress in many areas of delivery on the ground and on reforms. However, we are all committed to this, and I hope that we can send a clear message to care-experienced young people that we care about them and that we will make sure that, by 2030, the Promise is delivered.”
“We can pass legislation, but we need to make sure that attitudes change, and the Promise can build on what the legislation has done. In the past few years, I have chaired and been involved in many meetings with people who work in social work and across our public sector, who talk about the Promise and their ambitions to meet it. It comes down to resources, and it always will. However, those people are collectively committed to keeping the Promise, and we cannot put to one side the concern, which has been expressed by COSLA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and others, that delivering the Promise on the ground will be the major challenge of the next parliamentary session. Tonight, I hope that Parliament can and will reaffirm our support for delivering the Promise.”
“A grandparent told us that, at 3 in the morning, the police arrived at her door with her half-naked grandchild, handed her over and that was it. She had to put together a package, leave her job, rally round and get the support that she needed. She fought for absolutely everything. It should not be like that. I hope that the opportunities that the minister has outlined—the kinship care vision, the awareness and the visibility of support, and some of the changes that the Government intends to make, especially around providing clearer local support offers, proactively supplying information and improving consistency and transparency—will make the difference. However, if they do not, I intend to make sure that the next bill does more for kinship care families. It is the only way that we can make sure that they will be supported.”
“I met some kinship care families this morning, and I am still concerned about what we are seeing and about the postcode lottery that we all want to be addressed. It is unacceptable that we still see huge variation between local authority areas in what is being delivered for care- experienced young people, from support stopping at 16 or 18 to councils not making sure that support continues up to 21, as is the case in foster care. We can and must have a far better vision for kinship carers, especially families. At the committee, the minister and I sat in a round-table meeting with kinship care families. It is a story that I repeat, and it sticks with me as one of the main things that has made me think that we, who are doing this job, can always do better.”
“I have been inspired by every single young person I have met during my time working on the bill. There was the young man who told me that he was studying law and then joked that Scotland needs more lawyers, who has seen how the Promise has made a difference in enabling him to go on to study. Then there were the two sisters whom Paul McLennan and I met at an event in Parliament with the Education, Children and Young People Committee, who demonstrated that we are seeing welcome progress on keeping siblings together, which is something that Parliament demanded. There is a lot more that we should and must do to make sure that the bill achieves what it has to achieve. As I said, kinship care is an area that I think is important.”
“It is especially important for kinship care, which is one of the aspects of the bill that many of us feel is not where it should be. However, I know that the minister has set in course actions and work that will make sure that that is taken forward. Other members have already touched on the fact that this is not the complete Promise. This is not us being able to stand up and say that we have collectively kept the Promise. We need to dedicate ourselves to doing that in the next parliamentary session. All the young people who are watching or listening to the debate should know that they are the ones who have driven the change and made every politician from every political party that is represented in the Parliament commit to keeping the Promise and making it a reality.”
“I, too, take the opportunity to pay tribute to the minister. It is a strange fact that it seems to be only at the end of the parliamentary session that any of us is able to express our respect or friendship for one other. I thought that the First Minister was about to make an intervention there. I pay tribute to Natalie Don-Innes, who, as has been mentioned, did a great job as convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. She should also be proud of the work that she has done as a minister and the example that she has set. We often talk in the chamber about lived experience, and it is sometimes thrown around as evidential proof of what we are trying to achieve. I know that the minister has brought that to her role.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make an announcement regarding the development of the Sheriffhall junction before the end of the parliamentary session. (S6O-05675)”
“I welcome the constructive discussions that have taken place across the parties, and I especially thank the minister for moving the agenda forward. I also put on record my thanks to organisations that support children and families, particularly Children First, which has long advocated for the wider use of family group decision making. I look forward to supporting the wider package in the group. Amendment 10 agreed to. Amendments 94 and 95 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Section A1—Kinship care needs assessment The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 4 is on kinship care. Amendment 11, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendment 12.”
“That would help Parliament and the public to better understand how this important service is being provided across Scotland and where it could be strengthened. My amendments would also make technical changes to reflect the definition of family group decision-making services that the minister’s amendment 10 will add to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Importantly, my amendments form part of a cross-party package of proposals in the group, and I believe that the overall package of measures now strikes the right balance. It will improve visibility and understanding of family group decision making while continuing to respect the professional judgment of those who work with our children and families.”
“I am pleased to speak to amendment 79 and the other amendments in my name in this group, which relates to family group decision making. As the minister and Willie Rennie have pointed out, family group decision making is a well-established approach that has been used by some local authorities in Scotland—including my own here in Edinburgh—over a number of years to bring families together to make plans for children where there are serious concerns about their wellbeing. My amendments in this group focus on strengthening transparency and accountability in how family group decision making is used, and on ensuring that we all tie in to the same definition of the service. My amendment 84 would require the Scottish ministers to publish and lay before Parliament information on the use of FGDM nationally within three years of royal assent.”
“That is why RCN Scotland is of the view that the Lord Advocate should have a role in developing and approving the statutory guidance governing the provisions around assistance. Amendment 263 would require the statutory guidance that is produced by the Scottish ministers to include “how the provision of assistance to terminally ill adults, in accordance with this Act should be arranged by health boards, including the development of patient pathways.” Again, I lodged the amendment on behalf of RCN Scotland, which is concerned that, if the bill is passed, assisted dying will be part of the standard role for existing staff, such as district nurses, and existing teams will be expected to take on that role, which would not be safe or sustainable for the workforce or for those seeking to access assisted dying.”
“I note that amendment 56 would pre-empt my amendment, but both amendments 56 and 265 seek to tidy up section 23(3A), which makes reference to a subsection that was not added to the bill at stage 2. I therefore urge colleagues to support my amendment 265 over section 56. I lodged amendments 260 and 265 on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland to amend section 15. It is important that guidance is clear on exactly what is permitted and what is not permitted and, in particular, what constitutes assistance. That will require a level of clinical input, and it will also require legal input. We need to ensure that the practitioners who are involved in assisted dying are absolutely clear on what is legally permitted and what is not.”
“I thank Ross Greer for his advice. He managed to make me crash my computer, so I thank him for that as well. Luckily, however, IT staff are on hand. I hope to use my amendments in the group to create a part of the bill that provides clarification, because members have had concerns throughout the debate about the advice on making someone comfortable and how that will sit in the bill. Amendments 260 and 265 would require the Lord Advocate to be consulted on the development of statutory guidance on the provision of assistance under section 15. That would include what constitutes lawful assistance under section 15(4A) and distinguishes assistance from administration of the approved substance.”
“I absolutely agree with Mr Whittle so, if members are not minded to support my amendments, I urge them to support those from Mr Johnson and Mr Whittle because, taken together, they would strengthen the bill. The law must ensure that only the individual can raise the subject of assisted dying. Allowing healthcare professionals to introduce that topic without boundaries could be subtle coercion, particularly for vulnerable individuals, and could influence someone to consider assisted dying when they had had no prior intention of that. We previously heard from Mr Carson about a situation in which his mother had a proposition put to her by a doctor and followed it because he was the doctor and he would know best. I fear that that could happen here.”
“It is my strong view that there is no circumstance in which anyone—let alone a medical professional in the unique and trusted relationship between patient and doctor— should discuss the idea of assisted dying unless the patient requests it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 235 and other amendments in the group. Jeremy Balfour: I rise to speak along similar lines to those taken by my colleagues. We are debating an important group of amendments. We must ensure that there are strong and secure safeguards, that there is professional accountability and, most importantly, as Mr Whittle said, that there is protection for patients in the bill. Amendment 235 addresses a critical point about the initiation of any discussion of assisted dying.”
“I have worked with the BMA on a number of amendments to the bill. Professional judgment is really important. I wonder what the member would say about the areas in which the BMA wants professionals to be allowed to make judgments. Each and every one of us will have private conversations with medical professionals and we expect them to make judgments based on their professional capacity. Brian Whittle: I have had similar conversations about professional judgment, but that does not mean that the BMA is right or that we should accept that professional judgment should be initiated in that particular instance. I say again that the very act of introducing the idea of assisted dying into a conversation is, in and of itself, potentially coercive.”
“I think that it was Nicola Sturgeon who asked why we do not sit on the additional Thursday. We could do that and we could make a change to business, but that approach that pushes everything back is one of the reasons why we have got here. We have to tackle the problems as they arise, deal with business as it arises and, frankly, crack on with it. Although I recognise all that I have heard, I ask Parliament to support the business motion. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that motion S6M-21077 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“At this stage, we are now looking at 26 hours. I may be out by a few minutes, but I hope that that gives colleagues an idea. As a result of that, we require to find additional and exceptional time in order to complete the process. That is why the business has been scheduled for Friday from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm. How much time will actually be needed? On Friday, self-evidently, that will be determined by the pace of progress from then on in. I apologise to colleagues if I have not covered some of the points that they have made, but I go back to my central point: whatever the bureau did, members would be inconvenienced. I absolutely accept that. However, I ask members to proceed on that basis and support the motion. If we can conclude our consideration on Friday, it will alleviate the need for pressure to be pushed down the line.”
“I hope that that illustrates to colleagues the pressure that the Parliament is under. We have some very important legislation to consider next week. I think that it was Douglas Ross who made the point that we do not want to be in this situation again next week. That is what the bureau has been trying to avoid. We have scheduled a lot of time for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill this week, and extensive work was done by Parliament staff and business managers to arrive at the original scheduling for stage 3—but that was entirely predicated on progress being made in line with what might be reasonably predicted. Disposal of the amendments has not proceeded at the anticipated pace. I can give members a flavour of that. We had predicted that it would take around 21 hours and 40 minutes to get through the amendments.”
“The former First Minister made a really important point. We have three weeks, and there are three smaller bills to come before the Parliament. The Government has a debate time slot on the last Tuesday before the recess, which it could sacrifice for those three bills. If they were put into that time, it would create the opportunity for the two significant bills to be properly debated over the next two weeks. Graeme Dey: I have breaking news for Mr Briggs: the Government has sacrificed that time for that very purpose. That is the kind of challenge that we are facing. The proposal that we are considering, to be confirmed by the Parliamentary Bureau and brought back to Parliament, would be to sacrifice that debating time and use it for the final debates on three bills.”
“The amendments would also allow ministers, following consultation with relevant professional bodies, to set additional rules about the training and qualifications needed for practitioners who make those referrals. My amendments would ensure that the Parliament can set clear regulations that support safe and consistent referral processes for young adults under the age of 25. Importantly, I believe that they would maintain coherence across the bill and ensure that there are no gaps in ministerial powers.”
“Like Jackie Baillie, I have worked with Children’s Hospices Across Scotland to lodge amendments 169, 170, 300 and 301, which would ensure that anyone who is being assessed for assisted dying is made aware that support is available, including social work or mental health services. The amendments would strengthen protections for under-25s by making certain referrals automatic, including a requirement to refer anyone under 25 for social work or mental health support if certain indicators are present, including concerns about capacity, fluctuating or unpredictable diagnoses, safeguarding issues, communication needs, multiple disadvantages or limited or no social support.”
“I have set out directly to the chief executive clear expectations of what will be required by way of updates to the Scottish Government across all the issues that have been raised in the report, particularly about staffing, because the correlation between staffing, the type of staffing and the culture and environment is of the utmost importance. I will ensure that the Parliament and members are kept up to date on those matters.”
“I welcome the national in-patient service specification; it was something that I tried to progress as part of the bill that became the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019, which came into force in 2024. However, I do not understand, from what the minister has outlined, what escalation of reporting ministers will have beyond the annual report. On staffing, what will the minister actually be told, and on what basis? Tom Arthur: An executive oversight group has been established by the board to look at the issues at Skye house. The chief executive will be kept up to date, but there is a process in place for the immediate escalation of any serious or urgent matters. The Government’s position is that officials will continue to engage regularly.”
“Amendment 142 would provide an opt-in system for the medical professionals who will be looking to the Parliament to provide clarification, and I think that that would be within the competence of our Parliament, which is important. I urge members to vote for the establishment of such a register. We need to make an opt-in system explicit in the bill to provide assurance, which is needed by the healthcare professionals who would positively choose to participate and by patients who would be able to know that they are being cared for by those who want to be involved in assisted dying and who are appropriately trained and supported to do so. I move amendment 142.”
“I fail to see how having a register of psychiatrists who have undertaken additional training, who are at senior or consultant level and who have been conferred additional powers under the 2003 act can be compared with a register of healthcare professionals who will or will not participate in assisted dying. That seems to be counterintuitive. Miles Briggs: I do not accept that. The 2003 act set up a registered group of approved medical practitioners to carry out a particular role. I do not see any problem in what I am proposing, which is to provide a similar register for those who would take forward work on assisted dying.”
“However, I think that amendment 142 would provide the cleanest possible approach, which is to establish a register that people can opt in to. The amendment would provide clarification and reassurance by ensuring that an opt-in for healthcare professionals is explicit in the bill, allowing for patients to identify and be directed to a doctor who would fulfil the role of a coordinating registered medical practitioner. In the long term, the register would also help health boards to accurately map the staff who are available locally to provide assisted dying. Clare Haughey: I thank Mr Briggs for his indulgence in allowing me to labour this point.”
“I am not quite sure how he can use that particular piece of legislation as a model for an opt- out, because that was not an opt-out for anyone; it was about conferring powers on psychiatrists. Miles Briggs: It is not an opt-out model that I seek, but an opt-in model. The 2003 act is the only clear piece of legislation that the Parliament has agreed to that has established such a register for healthcare professionals, which is why I sought to model the amendment on it. Other options would have been available. I was part of the Health and Sport Committee—I think that Clare Haughey was as well—when it dealt with the Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Scotland) Bill and considered the issue of how we could get a group of healthcare professionals to undertake the work that the legislation was concerned with.”
“I tried to do that with the amendments that I lodged at stage 2, but, since they were not deemed to be within competence, I changed them and lodged amendment 142 at stage 3. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say in summing up this debate, but I do not understand why creating that opt-in provision would not fall within the competence of this Parliament, since it is identical in nature to the provisions in the 2003 act that I referenced. Clare Haughey: I am intrigued by the piece of legislation that the member is using as an example. It is my understanding that the register of approved medical practitioners that the member refers to was concerned with detaining people and extending their detention under the 2003 act, as well as with compulsion of treatment under other legislation.”
“I have very much heard from the BMA and RCN that their members are concerned that the opt-in provision needs to be fully transparent and that they need those reassurances in the bill. In addition to providing that— Jamie Hepburn: My question is just for clarity, and it picks up on Dr Allan’s point. Mr Briggs has referred to a comparable register in the 2003 act. For absolute certainty, can he clarify that there was no interaction at the time between the then Scottish Executive and the UK Government to transfer any form of legislative competence, and that it was legislated for solely on the basis of devolved competence at that time? Miles Briggs: Yes. That is why I want to make sure that we have used an identical model, and I have done so in modelling amendment 142.”
“That set up a register of approved medical practitioners who can carry out particular roles, which demonstrates that that approach is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, and that is exactly how I have modelled my amendment 142. I believe that the proposal is within the competence of Parliament and that it would offer the opt-in model that we are all trying to achieve for the bill. I totally recognise that there is sometimes a psychological difference between participation in assisted dying being something that could be expected of all health professionals—unless they use formal processes of opting out—versus it being expected only of those who have chosen to opt in. I welcome the recognition of the importance of that to health professionals, but the bill does not currently say explicitly that it is an opt-in system.”
“It reassures health professionals that they have a choice about whether they wish to participate and, if they do, the extent to which they do so. It protects the health professionals from being expected and/or persuaded to participate. It avoids healthcare professionals who do not want to participate— Alasdair Allan: I appreciate that I have not given Mr Briggs much time to develop his argument, but many members will, like me, sympathise with the point that he makes about ensuring that professionals can opt out. Does his amendment 142 stray into reserved areas? How does he answer the question about the bill’s competence? Miles Briggs: This is why the drafting of amendment 142 has been modelled on the provisions in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which Parliament passed.”
“That is why it is important to have an opt-in system, whereby only those who have positively chosen to opt in to provide the service are able to do so and it is not something that is expected of all healthcare professionals. At stage 2, Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill, accepted that the bill should be based on an opt-in model, and tabled amendments aimed at bringing that into effect. An opt-in model has been accepted in other parts of the UK and in Crown dependencies, and all current legislative proposals in those jurisdictions are based on that opt-in model. In Jersey and the Isle of Man, the model is that doctors and nurses register their intention to provide the service. An opt-in model has several benefits.”
“The proposals for these amendments have come from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. Both organisations are neutral on the principle of introducing legislation on assisted dying, but want to ensure that any legislation that may be passed protects the needs both of healthcare professionals, whether they choose to—or choose not to—provide assisted dying, and of their patients. If assisted dying were to be introduced by the bill, there would be a significant change for healthcare professionals. It is therefore vital that they are given the genuine choice about whether—and to what extent—they participate.”
“Councillors in Edinburgh have voted to develop a framework for a congestion charge in the capital that could see residents in East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian having to pay more than £4,000 a year to drive into the city. The First Minister says that he is interested in the cost of living, so does he agree that it is unfair for my constituents to pay to drive to work, visit family or go to hospital? I know that he is keen on referenda, so does he agree that, as in 2005, that should be decided by a referendum of people across my region?”
“I move amendment S6M-20956.2, to leave out from “further believes” to end and insert: “recognises that Scotland has the highest rate of violent injuries to school staff in the UK and that the Scottish Government has failed to take meaningful action to protect pupils and teachers; notes with concern the high levels of work-related stress reported across the profession; further notes the record number of newly qualified teachers leaving the profession, and believes that, by any reasonable measure, the Scottish Government has failed Scotland’s children and that this failure should be a source of shame.” 15:09”
“This is, potentially, the last education debate this session, but I hope that, when the Parliament reconvenes, all those who are lucky enough to be re-elected will come back with education reform at their heart. There has to be a better way to deliver the outcomes that we all want but that have not happened over the past decade.”
“The Scottish Government has let education down, with rising levels of classroom violence, a lack of additional support for pupils and record numbers of recently qualified teachers leaving the profession. We have trained people to become teachers, but then they cannot find work. That has been a real tragedy during this parliamentary session. Furthermore, over the past five years, there has been no co- ordinated action to empower our teachers and make our schools safe again. I turn to my amendment. I continue to be concerned at the failure to address violence in our classrooms. Given that Scotland now has the United Kingdom’s highest rate of violent injuries to school staff, it is clear that there has been no meaningful action to end such violence in our classrooms.”
“As Andrea Bradley, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said: “If Scotland is to eradicate the poverty-related attainment gap and deliver an education system that truly and equitably meets the diverse needs of all learners, then greater investment in schools and colleges, in resources, and in teaching and support staff, is essential.” I agree with the cabinet secretary that the Parliament needs to look towards education reform in the next session. I hope that the coming election will give us all that opportunity. We on the Conservative benches have been leading the calls for better access to training opportunities. Given the vast number of Government reviews that have not been implemented, we know what could have made a difference in this session. I agree with Willie Rennie’s motion.”
“Another pledge that the First Minister drove forward was on the Promise. The bill that is going through the Parliament does not feel like the vision that was outlined to care-experienced young people. I hope that there is still time for all of us members to turn that piece of legislation around, but it is important that we take stock and look at what has happened. The number of students who find positive destinations after leaving school remains static. Meanwhile, the least-advantaged students are still let down in comparison with better-off pupils. Their chances of ending up in further education, an apprenticeship or another positive destination are not improving.”
“It is little wonder that the Scottish Government has not wanted to devote more of its time to education, because it is now more than a decade since Nicola Sturgeon promised to eliminate the attainment gap and demanded to be judged on the issue. The SNP has failed to meet its own targets or restore Scotland’s once world-leading education reputation. I do not underestimate the vision that Nicola Sturgeon was trying to drive forward 10 years ago. Any First Minister should bring that to the position that they hold. However, the fact that the Government has not taken forward the work to deliver on those outcomes is what today’s debate is really about. I agree with Willie Rennie that we have to look at the Government and judge it on that 10-year pledge. The Government has now been in office for 19 years.”
“I thank the Liberal Democrats for using their party business time today to bring this debate to the chamber. I will not necessarily love bomb Willie Rennie as much as the cabinet secretary just did, but I welcome the fact that the Parliament has what the cabinet secretary said is the last time this session for it to debate education. I note again that that is only thanks to Opposition parties bringing the debate to the chamber today. I also note that the Government debate on Tuesday 24 March has still not been allocated. I imagine that that is when we will have the Scottish Government debate on improving literacy in schools, which was cancelled, not another debate on independence ahead of the election.”
“Miles Briggs spoke about yesterday’s budget, which I am delighted to say was passed. It included £926 million for the affordable homes supply programme. That is the largest single allocation for affordable homes on record. I only wish that Miles Briggs could have brought himself to vote for it. War in Ukraine (Fourth Anniversary)”