John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 14.
“Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 278 would require any regulations defining an exempt property to include specific exemptions for any property for as long as works are “being undertaken by the landlord to eliminate or mitigate risks” connected with building materials including cladding and reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC. It is not clear from the amendment how the “risks to human life that are (directly or indirectly) created”— as the amendment puts it—are to be measured, and it is concerning that the amendment would allow rent increases to open market rates in buildings where there is a risk to the tenant’s life. It is also not clear that that would necessarily offer a benefit to landlords, as the exemption would appear to apply only for the duration of any works, which may not align with the point at which rent can be increased.”
“However, I am minded in principle to take forward the possibility of regulations that would allow for such increases where the rent has been consistently held below market rent, or where there has been investment in improvements to the quality of the rented property, where that is appropriate. Further work and engagement with stakeholders will be necessary to consider the detail of where, and in what circumstances, such exceptions may be appropriate and how they could be defined, and I look forward to working with stakeholders on that. As I have said, however, it is crucial that we consider the responses and always seek to take a balanced and informed approach.”
“As part of delivering a rent control system that is capable of balancing the interests of tenants with those of landlords, the bill includes regulation-making powers to allow for rent increases above the cap where that is necessary to achieve that balance. However, as with other exemptions, it is essential that decisions in relation to such increases are informed by full and open consultation, allowing all of those who may be affected by rent control to have their say. For that reason, our recent consultation included specific questions about cases where the landlord has consistently charged a rent below the market rates or has made significant improvements to the let property, as well as other questions about cases where a rent increase above the cap may be appropriate. Analysis of the consultation responses is still on- going.”
“Amendment 160 would require any regulations to define an exempt property to include a specific exemption for property for which the landlord is a registered social landlord or a subsidiary of a registered social landlord. Amendment 161, in the name of Edward Mountain, would require any regulations to define an exempt property to include a specific exemption for any property where the tenant is an employee of the landlord and the rent is below the market rate. No definition is included of what is meant by “market rate” or how it would be determined what the “market rate” is, so it is unclear how such an exemption would operate. It is also not clear how or why a tenant who happens to be an employee ought not to be afforded protection. I am keen to ensure that the circumstances of individual landlords are taken into account.”
“Amendment 158, in the name of Graham Simpson, would require any regulations to define an exempt property to include a specific exemption for build-to-rent property, as defined in the amendment. Amendment 159 would also require any regulations to define an exempt property to include a specific exemption for properties where the rent payable is less than half the open market rent, and where the landlord has incurred significant costs by improving and repairing the property. As it is drafted, amendment 159 would not provide the Scottish ministers with the power to define “open market rent” or “significant costs” for the purposes of the regulations, and it is not clear how the amendment would operate without those definitions being clearly set out.”
“I have quite a lot of mid-market rentals in my constituency, and my constituents are contacting me about the huge increases that they are facing. It is not just inflation; it is a lot more than that. How can the cabinet secretary deal with that? Màiri McAllan: I understand that, within the affordable sector, we have social rented homes and mid-market homes, and that mid-market rents might increase. However, we should remember that, to a large extent, it is about social landlords using rents to drive improvements and expansion in the existing stock. We need only look at the homelessness statistics and the strain on supply and demand in housing in Scotland to know that we cannot take action that will stifle investment in all tenures of housing.”
“There is something for each of us to consider about how we can be most effective, too. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Martin Whitfield to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. 15:39”
“We all want to ensure that public services are effective for everyone, but a proliferation of commissioners is not an effective mechanism for achieving that. Instead, we need to reconsider the remits of our existing public bodies—including, as George Adam said, the possible consolidation of such bodies—filling any gaps between them to ensure full coverage of public trust mechanisms and service delivery oversight; ensuring clarity of responsibility; and putting in place systems to prevent delivery failures rather than just reacting to them. The evidence pointed clearly to our role as parliamentarians. It is our job to raise issues with ministers. It is our job on committees to follow what public bodies are doing and to feed their work into the Parliament and the Government. We cannot outsource that work—it is our role.”
“However, we also heard from, and about, other bodies in the wider public sector landscape that act independently of the Government, such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Audit Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. In short, it is not necessary for commissioners to be supported by the SPCB for them to be independent of Government or for them to work in the space of supporting public trust. I could certainly discern no pattern with respect to which public bodies should be SPCB-supported ones and which should be ordinary public bodies. I am sure that everyone in the chamber would like to prevent failure in our public services delivery and to quickly and effectively address failures when they occur.”
“I was concerned to hear that the creation of each new advocacy-type commissioner reduces the remit of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. It seems to me that that is the wrong direction of travel. Expanding the remit and resources of the Scottish Human Rights Commission—possibly, as Maggie Chapman suggested, with the addition of focused, time- limited projects—might provide a better solution than a proliferation of new commissioners might. The committee made an interesting finding about the independence of public bodies. It was emphasised to us how important it was for the SPCB-supported bodies to be independent of the Government—something that we can all agree on.”
“If they choose not to delve into the detail of the work of SPCB- supported bodies, commissioners or other public bodies, such work might be ignored. That is why I support the formation of a committee specifically to bring the work of SPCB-supported bodies into the Parliament. The Public Audit Committee provides an example: the work of Audit Scotland is considered weekly and the committee can bring issues that are raised to the attention of the Parliament, the Government and the subject committees. There is a point to be made about ensuring that subject committees are clear about their role in scrutinising the work of public bodies. They can choose to prioritise doing that. They can also choose to use the influence of, and investigations done by, those bodies to influence the Government and hold it to account. They can be the link.”
“In many cases, commissioners and the other bodies are doing excellent work, such as conducting research or producing reports, but it is not necessarily being taken up by, or feeding into, Government policy or priorities. That might be exacerbated when bodies work on matters that do not align with the legislation and policies on which the Government is currently focusing. For example, if reports are not immediately relevant to the work of the Government, they might languish on a shelf. Some alignment of what commissioners and public bodies are doing within the current Government programme might be beneficial. The issue appears to be partly due to the lack of an effective mechanism to feed that work into the Parliament. Parliamentary committees choose the work that they will undertake.”
“Overall, I am happy to support the review committee’s motion. The committee could have gone a bit further and been a bit more radical. However, at least we are putting down a clear marker that the drift to having more and more commissioners must be stopped. I welcome that. 16:46 Lorna Slater: There is value in highlighting some other points that arose in the evidence taken by the committee. One was about the connection between the Parliament and the existing SPCB- supported bodies—and, indeed, between the Parliament and public bodies in general. There are improvements to be made in both how well parliamentary committees hold those bodies to account and how effectively the work of those bodies is fed into the Parliament and the Government.”
“On the other hand, I am less convinced about the need for a specialist committee to scrutinise all SPCB-supported bodies, even though that is planned as a pilot. There is a danger of duplication in that idea: individual committees should be carrying out that scrutiny role, and I know that some already are. For example, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner stresses in its briefing the importance of its regular interaction with the Education, Children and Young People Committee—so that commissioner might potentially be dealing with three committees. The SHRC commented that its committee did hold it to account, but that it did not deal with finance and budget scrutiny. I am sorry, but subject committees need to do more on finance and not leave all of that to the Finance and Public Administration Committee.”
“If one of the tests is for the public to understand the roles of the different commissioners, this is one case in which I do not think that the public understands—and, frankly, I do not think that I do either. Concerning the Scottish Human Rights Commission, I had a lot of sympathy for the idea that we heard in the Finance and Public Administration Committee of having rapporteurs in the SHRC. Maybe that is similar to what George Adam was talking about just now. I note that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee rejected that idea. The review committee’s suggestion for the SHRC to have a different emphasis each year, following the example of the Auditor General, is potentially a good one. The SHRC’s own briefing for this debate confirms that it is open to having its powers and remit reviewed.”
“I very much welcome the report and I will vote for the motion tonight. Personally, I would have stopped all new commissioners, including the new Patient Safety Commissioner, and the new role of victims and witnesses commissioner, which—as is somewhat ironic—we agreed to only yesterday. However, I accept that the overall mood is that we had already made a commitment on those commissioners and that the Parliament wants to go ahead with them. It was interesting to read the comments of the ombudsman that if the SPSO had been given slighter wider powers, the Patient Safety Commissioner would not have been needed. I still think that there are strong arguments for merging the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life with the Standards Commission for Scotland.”
“What it might do is push one group further up the queue, and push other groups further down, and I fear that that does not take us any further forward overall. Turning to the committee’s report, I very much welcome the proposal for both justification and effectiveness tests, specifically the idea of a commissioner being a “last resort” and the recommendation that there must be a clear “functional gap” before we set up a new commissioner. I have to say that I am less convinced on the point of independence, as I think that we can have independence without separate legal bodies. We have examples such as His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland, which are not set up as distinct legal organisations, but which are, I think, respected as independent.”
“I hope that he will be cutting down on the number of public bodies in a major way. While financial savings from having fewer commissioners will not exactly transform the NHS, restricting the numbers of SPCB-supported bodies sends out an important signal that we need a simpler landscape. For every commissioner that we agree to establish, we divert resources away from front-line services. As the Finance and Public Administration Committee found, and as has now been confirmed, setting up a new commissioner was fast becoming a way for both Government and individual MSPs to try to show that they were tackling a problem. Very often, however, the underlying problem is actually a lack of money and resources, and having a commissioner does not really solve that problem.”
“That was certainly one of George Adam’s better speeches—and he did not mention Paisley once, as far as I could tell. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I am a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which looked at the topic previously, and I have read the review committee’s recent report with interest. Broadly speaking, I am supportive of what the review committee recommends, although I feel that it could have been a bit more radical. It is not that commissioners are a bad thing, but Scotland is a small country with—as we have just heard—a very cluttered public-body landscape, and we should be able to do things in a much simpler way in comparison with other, larger countries. That is why I have high hopes for Ivan McKee’s work on public sector reform.”
“Secondly, parliamentary committees are responsible for holding SPCB-supported bodies to account in the exercise of their functions. Both our review and the review by the Finance and Public Administration Committee identified capacity as a core challenge. The governance and scrutiny of those bodies has been limited not because of a lack of willingness but because of the finite time and resource that are available to the SPCB and to committees of the Parliament. Our view, therefore, is that solely recommending that the SPCB or parliamentary committees “do more” would not, in itself, bring about the improvements that are required. In that regard, we appreciate, in particular, the amount of legislation that committees have recently had to deal with, and we should all consider that with regard to the next session of”
“Permanent: The proposed body must address an issue in perpetuity. It cannot be created to deal with an issue that might have arisen due to a short-term failure or perceived failure in public service, or which could be resolved with a fixed-term dedicated piece of work by an existing body. Independence: The proposed body must require a high degree of operational and perceived independence from the Scottish Government.” The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to explore incorporating those criteria into its own ministerial control framework for new public bodies. I turn now to the governance and accountability of SPCB-supported bodies, which operates in two broad streams. First, the SPCB is responsible for governance and resourcing, including oversight of budgets, staffing and accommodation.”
“We accept that there may be future occasions when the establishment of a new SPCB-supported body is justified, but a clear need must be demonstrated. That is why we have recommended the implementation of two-tier criteria comprising justification and effectiveness tests that must be satisfied before any new proposal can be brought forward. The four justification criteria for establishing new SPCB-supported bodies are: “Last resort: Alternative models, such as enhanced powers to existing public sector bodies, or statutory duties on ministers must be exhausted and deemed insufficient to address the issue. Functional gap: There must be clear, evidenced and persistent absence of the proposed body’s functional gap across the full Scottish public sector landscape, not just within SPCB supported bodies.”
“As is set out in the motion for the debate, we are concerned that such expansion “risks further fragmenting the current landscape, increasing complexity for service users, and placing additional strain on the SPCB and parliamentary committee resources”. Therefore, I urge Parliament to reject the amendment if it is moved. On the basis of the evidence that we received, our committee was clear in its view—which was unanimous—that the SPCB-supported body landscape should not be expanded to include new advocacy-type bodies. Although we understand the benefit in organisations with a public trust element, such as the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Scottish Information Commissioner, being SPCB supported, we believe that advocacy bodies, where required, could just as effectively sit within the wider public sector landscape.”
“Ben Macpherson talks about the existing landscape, but does he accept that, for most people, having a standards commission and a commissioner for ethical standards is totally confusing and unnecessary? Ben Macpherson: In some ways, I can see why members and others might look at the distinction between the two bodies critically. However, our committee heard quite good evidence—I refer the member to it—about the benefits of the two bodies being separate and distinct. When our committee was established, there were proposals for up to five new SPCB-supported bodies with advocacy functions to be created before the end of the parliamentary session.”
“As members will be aware, I am required, under standing orders, to decide whether, in my view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, no provision of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Decision Time 20:48”
“I will not press amendment 157. Amendment 157, by agreement, withdrawn. Schedule 1—The Office of Victims and Witnesses Commissioner for Scotland Amendment 58 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to. After schedule 2 Amendments 94 and 95 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to. Schedule 3—Sexual Offences Amendment 158 not moved. Schedule 4—Minor and Consequential Modifications Amendments 159 and 160 not moved. Long Title Amendments 161 to 164 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Amendment 165 moved—[Rona Mackay]—and agreed to. The Presiding Officer: That ends stage 3 consideration of amendments.”
“If I remember rightly, it was first attempted by Michael McMahon, who had a member’s bill on the issue in an earlier session of the Parliament. I am sure that, if he is listening, he will be pleased about it finally happening. We do not know what will happen. To conclude, I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees that a future Parliament needs to have a look at jurors and how valued they should be. Not much work has been done on that. We have talked about juries and jury myths and everything that is expected of juries. Without juries, we cannot run our criminal justice system. If members have spoken to anyone who has served on a jury, they will know that there is a lot of negative feedback about serving as a juror. It is perhaps work for a future Government to recognise the importance and value of our jurors.”
“Others think differently. I wholly appreciate where the Government was coming from: it tried to maintain the balance, if we can achieve such a thing. The bill was published with 12 jurors, and the conviction would be on eight jurors; now, we have 15 jurors. It is probably right for the Government to decide that, but it must be noted that Scotland will still be an outlier. That is one of the arguments about not proven, and members should bear that in mind when voting on the bill tomorrow. I am comfortable with it, because there are many differences between the criminal justice system in Scotland and the English system and those in other jurisdictions. Our system has grown over many years, but it has to be modernised—I totally accept that. 20:45 It was our position that we should remove the not proven verdict.”
“As we finish the amendments on this landmark bill, let me pay tribute to the victims, families and support organisations who have shaped it, including those who have campaigned for many years for the abolition of the not proven verdict. It is now time to act and to implement the reforms in the bill. I look forward to our continued debate tomorrow. In the meantime, I ask Pauline McNeill not to press amendment 157. If she does, I ask the Parliament to vote against it. Pauline McNeill: I do not intend to press the amendment. In part of her contribution, Christine Grahame demonstrated why it is still worth having this debate. She is absolutely right. Depending on whom we speak to, we will get a different answer. When the Lord Advocate gave evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, she said that it would be harder to get a conviction.”
“The two verdicts of guilty and not guilty are unambiguous and clear, and they had the most support in the consultation that was led on the bill. I will finish by— Christine Grahame: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Angela Constance: Oh, okay. Christine Grahame: That sounded like resignation. Does the cabinet secretary consider that the change may lead to more convictions? Angela Constance: Let me be clear to Ms Grahame: the purpose of this part of the bill is neither to decrease nor to increase the number of convictions; it is to ensure that we have balance in the system. It is about modernising our system, ensuring that there is transparency in decision- making processes. I am sure that we will debate not proven more tomorrow. In my view, it is a reform that is long, long overdue.”
“The issues are, of course, complex, but they have been thoroughly and carefully scrutinised, particularly by those on the Criminal Justice Committee. As we are on the last grouping, I take this opportunity to thank the committee members for their considered engagement throughout the bill process. I say to Christine Grahame that this part of the bill is about modernising our system. Not proven is a widely misunderstood verdict. It traumatises victims, as it is a verdict that they do not trust or understand, and it leaves a lingering stigma on the accused. On John Mason’s point, there is an argument for having the two verdicts as proven and not proven. To my surprise, nobody really made that argument during the passage of the bill, and there have been no amendments to that effect.”
“It might very well be neutral at best. Angela Constance: Ms McNeill is correct, I am afraid: I cannot support her amendment 157. Under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, the Lord President is responsible for the training of the judiciary, and it would not be constitutionally appropriate for ministers to pass judgment on judicial training. There are also some drafting issues with the amendment: it is not clear what is meant by “sufficient training”, nor is the level of detail clear regarding the training to be supplied to the Parliament. Abolishing the not proven verdict is, indeed, a significant step for the Parliament. I am pleased that there was cross-party support for the change in the Labour, Tory, Green and SNP 2021 manifestos, which has permeated through to support during the bill’s passage.”
“I follow Christine Grahame’s argument with interest, because I, too, feel that, to some extent, the not proven verdict is a more honest verdict, whereas, if there is a verdict of not guilty, somebody may have got off on a technicality or for all sorts of reasons. Is there at least a strong argument for the two verdicts being “proven” and “not proven”— albeit that I accept that we have lost that argument? Christine Grahame: I will not fight a battle that has been lost, as it is a waste of my energy. I am just presenting the case that a crime being found not proven was not always bad news from the victim’s point of view. The sword of Damocles went over the head of that gentleman, and he has stopped his misbehaviour—so far. While we will just have the two verdicts, let us please not presume that that will lead to more convictions.”
“I congratulate the Scottish Youth Parliament on all its work, particularly on the subject of transport, and I look forward to continuing engagement with it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite Jim Fairlie to respond to the debate. You have around seven minutes, minister. 13:24”
“Do we want to be a low-tax country with poor public services, including poor public transport for younger people, or are we willing to pay more tax on income, property, savings and so on so that our young people get a better deal and a better quality of life? Those questions are primarily for our young people to decide on. It is all very well for me, aged 68, to say that I want higher taxes and quality public services; however, it is for our young people to make those choices for the future, and they should absolutely be listened to right now. Part of what we need has to be increased financial education. Actually, I would say that the whole population—including, perhaps, some MSPs—needs that, but if we focus on young people to start with, we will not go far wrong.”
“We could do with ScotRail staff being a bit more proactive in managing passenger behaviour on trains, not just referring everyone to the British Transport Police, who, clearly, are not present on many trains at all. We are considering transport today, but I would also mention the Scottish Youth Parliament’s recently published manifesto for 2026 to 2031, which contains 31 policies. In this debate, we are focusing on society policies 4 and 5, but I was particularly intrigued by education policy 2, which is on financial education. Some policies, such as listening more to young people, should be happening anyway and should come at minimal cost. Others, such as reduced or free train fares, will clearly cost money. Again, that brings up the question of taxation and the kind of country that we want to live in.”
“Hitchhiking, too, used to be a great way of getting around for young people—I did it myself. It was not entirely reliable, nor did it run to a timetable, but at least it was free. Graham Simpson: How old were you? John Mason: Pass. However, times have moved on, and I saw hardly anyone hitching when I drove in the Highlands and Islands this summer. As for some of the specifics in the Youth Parliament paper, I agree that the under-22s bus travel scheme should be maintained. Expanding it to 26 or to cover trains, too, would certainly come at a cost, but perhaps there is room for compromise, for example by making the young person’s railcard more attractive. Safety in public transport is definitely an issue, and not just for young people.”
“I support, as others do, the Youth Parliament’s aims for affordable, accessible and reliable public transport. I appreciated reading its briefing for today’s debate, as well as hearing from David McGill and Islay Jackson at the CPG last October. I fully accept that there is a particular challenge with public transport in rural and island areas, where the more spread-out population almost inevitably makes frequent and affordable public transport more difficult. However, the fact that it is difficult does not mean that we should ignore it. Perhaps we need to use a bit more imagination as to where we go on that. For example, when I was younger, the post bus was a great asset, carrying both mail and passengers. I think, sadly, that the last one ran in 2017.”
“I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I thank Sarah Boyack for raising the topic. I, too, am a member of the cross-party group on sustainable transport, which is led by Graham Simpson. We were united in being impressed, as members have heard, by the Youth Parliament’s work on the subject of transport, and we wanted to give it more of an airing in this older people’s Parliament. In the first place, we should have more interaction and mutual working between the Youth Parliament and this place, whether it be in cross- party groups, committees or elsewhere. Over the years, I have appreciated meeting MSYPs— especially, in the present period, the members for YMCA Scotland, Andrew Will and Jonah Brooks, the latter of whom is active in Tollcross YMCA in my constituency.”
“Secondly, I ask Liz Smith, on receiving such a commitment, to drop her plans for the bill, as I fear that legislation in this area, while being very well meaning, would absolutely do more harm than good. My hope is that such a compromise would satisfy the intentions of Liz Smith and Parliament. 18:08”
“The concern on that point is that a statutory provision whereby all young people were to go on residential visits would lead to an expectation that more teachers would be duty bound to take part in such activities as a requirement of their job. That, in turn, would mean new conditions and new contracts for teachers. We would be best to avoid that can of worms, which I do not believe it is necessary for us to deal with. My ask is twofold. First, I ask the Government to come up with a reasonable pot of funding, which could be similar to the pupil equity funding money, that could be used to top up the funding that can be raised under the present system.”
“At this morning’s meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Liz Smith questioned the idea of universal provision. Although I would like us to provide outdoor education on a universal basis—that would be ideal—we simply do not have the money to do that. My other point is that the present model relies heavily on teachers volunteering and going beyond the call of duty in order to take young people away on residential weeks. We have heard from teachers that they and the pupils benefit from that, and that relationships and learning often greatly improve after youngsters have seen their teachers “in their pyjamas”.”
“Does he acknowledge that some of the issues to do with costs and staffing could be addressed in the stage 2 process and that, given the commitments that the Scottish Government has made and the fact that the general principles of the bill have been agreed to at stage 1, the first part of the process should be the lodging of a financial resolution? John Mason: In a word, no. I would have liked it if a compromise could have been reached between Liz Smith and the Government, and I am disappointed that that has not happened. I voted against the bill because the issue of money is fundamental. We all agree that we would like kids to take part in outdoor education, but money is the fundamental issue. That is why I could not support the provision of £30 million—the figure that was identified—or whatever it might be.”
“If the Government was able to find a pot of money—maybe £5 million or £10 million—to top up what is currently happening, virtually all pupils would be able to go on such trips. I do not find it acceptable that we should use limited public funds to subsidise well-off families who are currently paying for such trips. Money is tight, and I fear that we need to target funds where the needs are greatest, rather than offer the universal provision that Liz Smith has called for. Liz Smith: I am grateful to Mr Mason for his engagement on the bill. He has said that he thinks that the Scottish Government should be able to find a pot of money, but I think that that takes away from the argument that he just made.”
“The amount of money could be £30 million, although Liz Smith now says that it could be less, and the Government has said that it could be more. On the financial side, we presently have a system in which many families are able and willing to pay the full costs. In addition, some schools are able, through fundraising, to support pupils whose families cannot afford the full cost. That in itself can be beneficial, as it involves young people working together to raise the cash that is needed. However, for some schools and some families, that is not an option, and the lack of money prevents them from benefiting from a hugely valuable experience. My comment on that point is that we do not need legislation to enable all school pupils to go on residential outdoor education trips. What we need is more money.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I thank Liz Smith for giving us that opportunity. As a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I have been quite involved in the bill and have heard evidence from a variety of witnesses, including the minister and the member in charge. Some of us from the committee visited Broomlee outdoor centre near West Linton, and I think that most of the committee members stayed at similar centres as youngsters and have spoken about how much they benefited from that. Therefore, it is fair to say that all of us in the committee are enthusiastic about the bill’s intentions. However, there have been key problems with the bill that have prevented me from fully supporting it. One of those issues is money, and another is teachers’ terms and conditions.”
“I ask not just the minister but the Parliament to reflect on that, because—to be frank—it is undemocratic.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Liz Smith: I will, in a minute. Thirdly, given that the bill had been passed at stage 1, the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise made commitments on the record at the Education, Children and Young People Committee that she would—like me— lodge suggested amendments at stage 2, and that she would bring forward what the Scottish Government saw as an affordable bill. None of that has happened, which is why the minister has been recalled to the committee tomorrow. Fourthly, if the minister were to allow the bill to fall, it would be the only time in the history of the Scottish Parliament when a bill had passed at stage 1, but the Government of the day sought to undermine the will of Parliament by refusing to lodge a financial resolution.”
“The facilities are a critical first point of engagement for the people who are most at risk of drug-related death and overdose, many of whom are disconnected from wider health and support systems. They are a vital tool in the box against the drug death challenge that we are facing in”
“As the local MSP covering the drug consumption rooms, I very much welcome the existence of the Thistle in Glasgow. Will the minister confirm that the centre is there because there was already a drugs problem and there was paraphernalia in my constituents’ closes? That is why it is the right location for it. Will she commit to the full three-year pilot? It is far too early to make judgments other than that lives have already been saved. Maree Todd: John Mason is absolutely correct to identify that, and exactly the same process has been taken with the proposal that may be brought forward by the Edinburgh integrated joint board. It has looked at where the challenges, paraphernalia, drug-related chaos, violence, overdoses and deaths are, and that is where it is choosing to site the facilities.”