Jamie Greene
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“In reality, our end-of-life choices are not always truly choices—do not resuscitate, nil by mouth, morphine, let nature take its course—but the one thing I cannot get out of my head is this: what if? What if palliative care can do nothing more for me? What if, in excruciating pain, I lose my dignity and control?”
“If we vote against the bill and it falls, I believe that I would wake up tomorrow and regret it, and I think that others in the chamber might, too. I could not look someone in their eyes in their dying days and tell them that I denied them that choice. I will sum up in the words of Diane, who wrote to us all on Saturday afternoon.”
“I think that I sit somewhere in the middle, because there is always risk when making law. Our task is to weigh up that risk and mitigate it where we can. No bill is perfect, so the question we must ask ourselves is not an abstract one. If I or someone I love want that choice at the end, will it be there?”
“I thank Lorna Slater for that speech—that was beautiful. I think that, tonight, we have heard some of the most profound and powerful speeches I have ever heard in this place, and I thank all members for that.”
“I fear a painful death more than death itself, so the dilemma that I have grappled with is simple. God forbid the day ever comes when I need that choice, but would I rather it was there or not? Members must ask themselves the same question—there or not? If I want that choice at the very end, I must offer that choice to others.”
“Can Stephen Kerr elicit which parts of the bill, as amended to date, relate to reserved matters? My understanding is that those have all been removed from the bill. If he could point to some such parts of the bill, I would be grateful. Stephen Kerr: I accept what Jamie Greene is saying. I am speaking to amendment 249.”
The complete record
Every one of 457 lines we hold for Jamie Greene, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“To ask the First Minister, in light of the reported rise in protests and rhetoric aimed at immigrants and minority groups, what action any future Scottish administration can take to restore kindness, decency and tolerance to politics. (S6F-04786)”
“If we vote against the bill and it falls, I believe that I would wake up tomorrow and regret it, and I think that others in the chamber might, too. I could not look someone in their eyes in their dying days and tell them that I denied them that choice. I will sum up in the words of Diane, who wrote to us all on Saturday afternoon. She simply says this: “It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. It is my body, my life and my death. Only I will know when enough is enough. Please grant me the choice to fulfil my dying wish.” I say to Diane that, tonight, I will do just that. I make this plea to others: it is not too late to change your mind. No one will judge you for that. Vote to give me that choice. Vote to give yourselves that choice. Vote to give everyone that choice. 20:37”
“I fear a painful death more than death itself, so the dilemma that I have grappled with is simple. God forbid the day ever comes when I need that choice, but would I rather it was there or not? Members must ask themselves the same question—there or not? If I want that choice at the very end, I must offer that choice to others. I have no privilege in death. If we vote to deny people that choice tonight, we deny everyone that choice, including ourselves and including people out there who one day might need it—and who am I to deny someone that most final of decisions in life? Dignity in death is not just a slogan—it is a right. When it comes to assisted dying, I believe, in my heart of hearts, that more people would be harmed by its absence than by its presence.”
“In reality, our end-of-life choices are not always truly choices—do not resuscitate, nil by mouth, morphine, let nature take its course—but the one thing I cannot get out of my head is this: what if? What if palliative care can do nothing more for me? What if, in excruciating pain, I lose my dignity and control? What if I wish the end would come sooner and in a manner of my choosing? What if I would rather say my goodbyes with a smile on my face and perhaps a tear in my eye—not when I can neither see nor hear my loved ones? What if my body is spent but my mind is staunch and I decide that my time has come? Regulated assisted dying already exists, but, disgracefully, only for those with the means to access it. Unregulated, unassisted dying exists by way of suicide, and that cannot be right. How is that in any way a choice?”
“I think that I sit somewhere in the middle, because there is always risk when making law. Our task is to weigh up that risk and mitigate it where we can. No bill is perfect, so the question we must ask ourselves is not an abstract one. If I or someone I love want that choice at the end, will it be there? I want to speak plainly and from the heart, because I was deeply conflicted by this subject. Although every one of us will die, few of us will have a choice about the timing or manner of our death, and some argue that that is how it should be. Truth be told, I do not want to die. I am afraid of it. After some recent ill health, I have spent many moments thinking about my own mortality. Will my death be quiet and peaceful, or accidental and sudden? Will it be painless or painful?”
“I thank Lorna Slater for that speech—that was beautiful. I think that, tonight, we have heard some of the most profound and powerful speeches I have ever heard in this place, and I thank all members for that. On a more positive note, friends, I celebrate another year alive this week, but I do so while also remembering those we have all loved and lost. It is bittersweet to end my time here discussing death. I voted to pass this bill at stage 1, like others, to let it run its course, and I have said little since. I think that we have done it justice. Half of the amendments that passed came from those who opposed the bill. I wish that we made more laws like this. The debate ranged from fears of the worst of humanity on one side to well-meaning compassion on the other.”
“That relates to some of the decisions that the Parliament has made in the course of our consideration of the amendments to the bill at this stage in the process. We have heard repeatedly that areas such as employment law, professional regulation and other UK-wide frameworks remain reserved matters. If provisions of the bill reach into those areas—as they did, before we began the amendment process—they cannot take effect simply because this Parliament wishes them to.”
“Can Stephen Kerr elicit which parts of the bill, as amended to date, relate to reserved matters? My understanding is that those have all been removed from the bill. If he could point to some such parts of the bill, I would be grateful. Stephen Kerr: I accept what Jamie Greene is saying. I am speaking to amendment 249. Neil Gray’s amendment 113 is in a similar vein. Both amendments in this group say the same thing. My amendment is not an attempt to frustrate the bill; it is an attempt to ensure that the bill that we pass is capable of operating within the constitutional limits—the competence—of this Parliament. Throughout the scrutiny of the bill, there has been considerable discussion about the issue of competence. Those concerns are not academic; they go directly to whether parts of the bill could operate lawfully once enacted.”
“The Scottish Government has no comment on the remaining amendments in the group other than technical points, which can be found in the commentary. Michael Marra: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to briefly correct the record relating to my contribution in proceedings yesterday on the mandatory training for participation in assisted dying by a physician in Victoria, Australia. Our colleague Emma Harper set out the full mandatory training requirements for participation in assisted dying. My contribution related specifically to training on the identification of coercion. The video that must be watched by candidates is not two minutes, as I stated; it is two minutes and 22 seconds. I hope that that corrects the record.”
“On amendments 186 and 196, setting up a panel would be likely to have major financial implications. I have already spoken about amendment 193 in the debate on group 4, as it relates to amendment 174 in that group. Taken together, the amendments could add procedural complexity and delay without clear evidence that they would improve outcomes beyond the safeguards that are already provided in the bill. Amendment 197 may give rise to issues of legislative competence in so far as it relates to the G2 regulation of health professions reservation in the Scotland Act 1998. From a delivery perspective, it is also not clear how the provision would be monitored or enforced. The amendment is also very prescriptive in assuming the reaction of the adult involved.”
“On amendments 183, 183A, 185 and 195, the requirement for additional accompanying statements, particularly where practitioners must explain divergence from an earlier assessment, may add to the administrative burden. There are also concerns that mandating detailed written justifications could deter clinician participation, lengthen processes and duplicate information that is already required elsewhere in the bill and supporting guidance. Amendment 184 provides that, should someone be found to be ineligible to request an assisted death, they could not undergo further assessment until a period of 12 months had lapsed. That could result in a person who was otherwise lawfully eligible to be assisted to die being prevented from accessing an assisted death.”
“If it is intended that the records should be used by Public Health Scotland for its duties under section 24 of the bill, it is not clear that the information to be recorded and retained would all be necessary. If it is to be used to support investigations into any offences or wrongdoing under the bill, the provision does not seem to support a professional regulator’s access to the information, as they would not be exercising statutory functions under the bill or, arguably, under any related legislation. Without having clarity on the purpose of the record keeping, it would not be possible to say whether 10 years is a suitable retention period.”
“That may result in the duplication of existing assessments or referrals being made in circumstances in which appropriate support or protections are already in place. There are potential challenges around the interpretation and consistency of concepts, such as a person being “deemed unable to protect their own interests”. That could lead to variability in the production of local authority statements and in their interpretation by practitioners. In relation to amendment 173, it is unclear how or where those records are to be maintained. The reference to any regulatory or oversight body exercising statutory functions under the bill or other related legislation is unclear, so the purpose of the proposed record keeping is also not clear.”
“Amendment 171 may present operational challenges, as it raises questions about local authority capacity and alignment with existing social work and safeguarding frameworks. In practice, there is no single consolidated system through which local authorities can readily confirm an individual’s status across the different legal frameworks that the amendment refers to. Responding to such requests may therefore require additional checks across multiple services, potentially increasing administrative burdens and affecting the timeliness of responses. The mandatory referral to a registered social worker where a statement indicates that a person is deemed unable to protect their own interests or where undue influence is identified risks conflating existing statutory safeguarding processes with a broader non-specific referral requirement.”
“The cabinet secretary has laid out some of the practical issues, but I wonder whether he could comment—I appreciate that it might be difficult, because I completely recognise that the Government is neutral—on the point that Jamie Greene raised about whether such circumstances could be accounted for in guidance. Neil Gray: That would need to be considered in the implementation of the bill, if it is passed. I cannot give any further commentary as to whether that would or should happen, because the Government is neutral on the bill and we would need to consider that at the point of implementation. I am afraid that I cannot provide any further assurance or commentary for Mr Hepburn or Mr Greene on that.”
“The effectiveness of the amendment would further depend on the availability of clear referral pathways and timely access to appropriate services, otherwise it could potentially impact on access to assisted dying for those aged under 25 years of age. In addition, from a technical perspective, it is not clear if it was intended that that provision would relate to the practitioner making the referral, rather than the practitioner receiving it. I give way to Mr Hepburn. Jamie Hepburn: I have been trying to communicate telepathically with Jamie Greene to see if he would intervene, but he has not done so, so I will. It is on the point that he raised. I, too, am inclined to believe that the assessments should be face to face, but I was taken with his point about how that could be inflexible in some circumstances.”
“The amendment may also raise issues of legislative competence in providing for regulations that include provision about “the training, qualifications and experience of the practitioner making the referral.” From a deliverability perspective, amendment 170 may raise concerns about service capacity, consistency of application and timely access to appropriate support. Several of the indicators listed may be common among the specified age group and could place additional pressure on social work and mental health services, with implications for capacity, prioritisation and waiting times. There are also challenges associated with the interpretation and consistent application of the indicators. Jamie Hepburn: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Neil Gray: I will do, shortly.”
“It is not clear what would happen in a circumstance in which the co-ordinating and independent registered medical practitioners held the relevant experience, nor whether those referrals could be made to the same registered medical practitioner holding the relevant experience. Amendment 164 may raise equalities issues on the basis of a difference in treatment depending on age. In addition, from a deliverability perspective, consideration must be given to the availability of suitably qualified “social work and psychiatry professionals” and the potential impact on assessment timescales and service capacity. Similarly, amendment 170 may raise equalities issues on the basis of a difference in treatment depending on age.”
“With regard to amendments 161 and 163, the requirement for referral would be costly and resource intensive, as it would result in both the co-ordinating and independent registered medical practitioners having to make those referrals, regardless of their own medical judgment and whether or not they felt that they required a second opinion. The amendments could require individuals who were seeking assistance to undergo potentially six separate assessments, given that both the initial two assessments would be required, as well as the co-ordinating and independent registered medical practitioners each having to make two referrals.”
“Amendments 153, 176, 179 and 188 could lead to some issues around accessibility of assisted dying, particularly for those living in rural and island communities, where there may be fewer registered medical practitioners who are available and willing to be involved in the provision of assisted dying, and potentially greater reliance on digital healthcare. Amendment 157, which would require the assessing registered medical practitioners to “make enquiries of at least one health … social care or social work professional”, would have clear resource implications that would have to be considered.”
“With regard to amendments 91 and 92, the addition of a further layer of assessment would have financial and resource implications for the NHS. On amendment 95, the introduction of new requirements for recording and sharing information relating to assessments could raise deliverability issues around information flows, duplication of records and a need for clarity around who can access or use recorded data. Further consideration would need to be given to alignment with existing legislation, in particular the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007.”
“I have heard contributions on the amendments in this group from many members with compelling cases to make, but I cannot comment on them—I must only set out the potential implications so that colleagues can take an informed position. For most of the amendments in this group on which I will comment, I am referring to their deliverability, practicality or potential financial implications, except one, which I will refer to in respect of legislative competence. Amendment 29 has potential implications for service delivery as it may require medical professionals to accommodate a wider range of timings and settings in relation to provision and oversight, with associated impacts on workforce capacity, scheduling and resource planning. Amendment 31 is a necessary technical amendment that corrects an erroneous cross- reference in section 7(1)(b).”
“I wanted to raise those issues, because I have wrestled with them, and other members might have done the same. As I said at the beginning of my comments, we want to get the legislation right, no matter what side of the bill we land on. We are approaching the amendments one by one to get them right for the patients who might benefit from the bill, if it is agreed to. Neil Gray: Once again, before I set out the Government’s position on amendments in the group, I note that do not have any comment to make on colleagues’ contributions or the merits of those contributions, nor do I have any comments on the organisations that have in some cases asked for issues to be raised.”
“I know that the Government has taken a neutral position on the majority of the amendments, which is helpful, in some cases. However, to get ourselves out of the conundrum that some of us will find ourselves in when it comes to voting on these amendments, will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care say in his summing up whether the issue could be resolved in the guidance that would be issued to practitioners? I am looking for some comfort and reassurance on that, because it feels that that might be a way out of the conundrum. If the cabinet secretary cannot robustly, honestly and directly give that reassurance—that is not a criticism in advance—I would be minded to support the amendments that would add the physicality element to the bill. I will leave it at that.”
“As Mr McArthur pointed out, that would remove any flexibility to allow for a scenario in which it might be suitable for one or more of the interactions to be virtual or by some other method. This has put many of us in a difficult position. I am keen to support Mr Johnson’s and Mr Allan’s amendments, which would amend the bill to say that there must be some physical interaction between patient and doctor. Having lived through the Covid years, we have accepted new ways of doing things in healthcare. However, that is for normal circumstances; when it comes to the issue of life and death and the signing off of the schedule 2 statements that doctors would have to make, my gut feeling is that a doctor could and should do that only once he has sat with a patient in person and looked them in the eyes. However, there should also be flexibility.”
“At the moment, unfortunately, I feel that some members are in an invidious position in relation to the apparent status quo of the bill as drafted, which means that, in theory, all interactions with both medical practitioners could be virtual, although that is a very unlikely scenario. On paper, it could be that the only physical or face-to-face interaction that some patients would have is at the point of the administration of the substance. I am not comfortable with that, and I do not think that any patient would want to be in that situation. However, the options that are being presented seem to be at the other end of the spectrum, forcing us into a position in which all interactions must be in person.”
“I will keep this brief. This is the first time that I have spoken in these proceedings, although I have been following them intently. I suspect that, like me, all members are trying to do the right thing. Particularly due to having free votes, it has been an exercise and a half to get my head around the amendments, but I have listened intently to them all. I lost some sleep last night over a couple of today’s amendments, such as Daniel Johnson’s and Alasdair Allan’s amendments on in-person interactions. From conversations that I have had in the past 24 hours, I know that other members have been wrestling with that issue, too.”
“I move, That the Parliament believes that many of Scotland’s island and coastal communities have been let down by the Scottish Government and have paid the price for the failure of the Scottish Ministers to provide them with the lifeline ferries they need; recognises that this has had an impact on businesses, livelihoods and local economies; notes that whilst the Scottish Government extended the Islands Business Resilience Fund, there are many impacted coastal communities, such as Dunoon and Ardrossan, where local businesses are not receiving compensation and calls on the Scottish Government to rectify this; notes with frustration that the delivery of the MV Glen Rosa has been delayed by another six months until late 2026 and that the MV Glen Sannox required months of repairs; believes that taxpayers, islanders and workers at Ferguson Marine have all been let down over this ongoing fiasco and expresses deep disappointment that no minister has ever taken responsibility by resigning, and further believes that Scotland’s island and coastal communities deserve better and that new requirements to replace ageing vessels are needed alongside a rolling 30-year strategy for ferries and port infrastructure so that no community is ever left without a viable lifeline service.”
“One major ferry is massively overdue. A new one is already out for repair. Another does not fit the harbour that it is supposed to sail from. New ferries are being built overseas, not here in Scotland, and we have an ageing fleet that breaks down, leaving islanders feeling like second-class citizens. It is a mess that has been two decades in the making. It has been a shameful episode in Scotland’s devolved political chapter, and I never have—and never will—apologise for raising it in the chamber.”
“Now, we are told that it can. There is a massive difference between announcing an intention to award a contract and announcing the award of a contract. Yesterday, we heard the former, not the latter, so we have no idea whether ministers have sought Competition and Markets Authority approval or whether such approval has been denied or granted. None of that was in the statement. How do we know that it will not be denied again? For more than a decade, we have heard the words “Teckal” and “state aid” bandied around to explain why direct award was problematic. I might be long in the tooth and a bit suspicious, but I will believe it when I see it. The yard deserves nothing less. I will sum up the motion and why it was right to use my first—and last—Lib Dem party business slot to focus on the plight of Scotland’s island communities.”
“We can be grateful that the current Cabinet Secretary for Transport has, to her credit, shown determination and commitment to getting stuff done. I am delighted with the announcement yesterday of the four new vessels being built at the yard. That is exactly the type and profile of work that the yard can excel at—I hope we all agree. However, the yard needs to get the contract first. When I spoke to people in the yard last night, many were sceptical about the Government’s announcement yesterday. The first stage of the small vessel replacement programme was awarded to Gdánsk, not to Greenock. Other contracts have been awarded to Turkey. The Parliament—including many on the Scottish National Party back benches—called for a direct award on all those occasions and the Government replied that it simply could not do it.”
“We are not even producing LNG in Scotland—it gets shipped in from Qatar to a terminal in Kent. It gets driven 460 miles in a diesel road tanker to Scotland and, even then, we have nowhere to store if. It is barely, if ever, used on the ferry that it was designed to be used on—a ferry that was designed for a harbour that it could not sail from. That is a genius idea if ever I heard one. Of course, there is also the Ferguson Marine shipyard in my own backyard of Inverclyde. It was nationalised by the Government in 2019. Since then, four chief executives have been sacked or have resigned and £3 million has been paid in salaries, golden hellos, golden goodbyes, bonuses and consultancy fees. Six transport secretaries later, not one of them has ever resigned.”
“Both of those ferries were announced with huge fanfare at the Scottish National Party’s conference back in 2015. They were supposed to set sail in 2018, and they were supposed to cost £97 million in total. I bet that is a promise that the SNP now wishes it had never made—because, eight years and some £400 million of taxpayers’ money later, the Glen Rosa is still not finished and the Glen Sannox, delivered only last year, has been out of action for more than three months. In fact, they have had to rip parts out of the Rosa to repair the Sannox. Those were supposed to be our flagship net zero marine machines. They were supposed to cast off the idea of dirty diesel engines in favour of that darling of civil servants, liquefied natural gas— the same LNG that caused so much of the delay and so many problems. For what purpose?”
“It is the same chamber and the same me— perhaps aged a little bit since then—addressing the same sorry saga of cancelled crossings, stranded tourists and missed appointments. We are supposed to be a proud seafaring nation, yet we have a ferries strategy fit for Luxembourg. Let us start with those two now infamous ferries, the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa. Everyone from Unst to Arran knows the story. It has been the subject of numerous committee reports, Audit Scotland critique and endless exposés unearthed by journalists and by furious and frustrated taxpayers through freedom of information requests. It is the stuff that textbooks will use as a case study for decades, to teach marine engineers and, hopefully, Governments how not to build a ferry.”
“Presiding Officer, I have been accused, over the years, of banging on about ferries in the chamber, and that is absolutely right. If you had told me 10 years ago, when I first spoke about ferries in the chamber, that the 23-year-old MV Caledonian Isles would now be 33 years old, that it would have broken down for 20 months while in service, that hull 802 in Port Glasgow would still not be carrying any passengers, that the Irish berth at Ardrossan would still be lying in tatters, that the Glen Sannox would have launched seven and a half years late at a cost of £140 million and that it would have gone offline for repairs for months due to design problems after less than a year in service, that the Ardrossan ferry would now be sailing out of Troon instead, and that all the ferries issues that I spoke to in my maiden speech would be featuring so prominently in one of my last speeches, my answer back then would have been, “I really do hope that won’t the case, for the sake of our island communities.” Yet here we are, some 10 years on.”
“We are now going to progress with the next steps around ensuring that it is compliant with the CMA, with due diligence and so on. Obviously, compliance is not optional—compliance is required.”
“Officials are progressing a dedicated programme of work to assess and enable the proposed approach. The programme brings together all the relevant policy, legal, commercial, finance, procurement and delivery teams across Government. We always balance the tension of letting Parliament know the direction of travel before all the work is done, because Parliament keeps asking—for good reason—and also because, once that work is under way, it is sometimes harder to keep a lid on some of the material. I know that Parliament has always called for additional scrutiny, so we are making the announcement having done initial work with the support of independent advisers to strengthen assurance and provide external challenge.”
“I absolutely welcome any intention to give the yard some work. It has cross-party support and the yard has been crying out for it for a number of years, so any move towards that is positive and I am grateful for it. However, I feel a little bit of uncertainty around the ministerial statement. I read carefully the language used in the statement and listened carefully to the Deputy First Minister’s language around the uncertainty of CMA approval for this. At stage 1, the Government was adamant that it could not make a direct award, so what has changed in the interim period? Is it an intention to award more work, is it a hope to award new work, or is it a desire to award new work? Also, when will we know, finally, whether that is possible? Kate Forbes: There is a very thorough process and we know what steps are required.”
“On Jamie Greene’s question about immediate remedial work, I have been quite clear that the answer is yes. When the asset is transferred, one of the first things that will happen will be work to support the port’s resilience.”
“In relation to Ardrossan accessing the island business resilience fund, the clue is in the name— it is an island business resilience fund. We have had to prioritise islands that have experienced the greatest degree of disruption. The threshold was initially set at a 15 per cent reduction, and then it went down to a 10 per cent reduction, so we have extended the fund to more islands, which is to be welcomed. Jamie Greene makes an important point about what will happen to Ardrossan in the future. I have made it clear—although this will be for another minister, because this is probably the last statement that I will make in the chamber—that my advice is that, at the time of that major development, there will be a need for business resilience for Ardrossan.”
“We simply cannot wait a number of years for the full redevelopment of the harbour. Fiona Hyslop: I thank Jamie Greene for his welcome of the purchase of Ardrossan harbour. The Ardrossan economy in North Ayrshire has wider challenges, and I hope that the move will give a bit of hope and confidence that investment will be made to give Ardrossan port a long-term, sustainable future. The work of the task force and our work with North Ayrshire Council will be really important, because more has to be done to ensure that investment is made. Jamie Greene is correct to identify that some technical issues mean that the Ardrossan-Brodick route is not operating currently. However, as I said, we expect vessels to be redeployed in the coming days and weeks to provide support.”
“I welcome the move to take Ardrossan port into public ownership. It is a good move, and I commend the efforts of local campaigners, who have been fighting for that for some years. However, the reality is that Ardrossan remains a difficult place to do business. There are still problems with services to Brodick from Ardrossan. Today and tomorrow, all services to Brodick are cancelled because of technical issues on the MV Caledonian Isles. That leaves local Ardrossan businesses bereft of footfall and cash for all that time. Once again, I make a plea to the cabinet secretary to extend the island business resilience fund to Ardrossan businesses. Will CMAL, the new owners of the harbour, undertake any more immediate remedial work on the port to make it more reliable?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding any assistance that the Scottish Government could provide, within devolved competence, to support anyone resident in Scotland who might be affected by the escalating situation in Iran and the Gulf region. (S6T-02931)”
“The question is whether the next Parliament will be up to that challenge. Only time will tell. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up the debate. 17:28”
“Funding for local government is not nice to have—it is a must have. When councils cut things, people feel that in their communities. Such cuts lead to a feeling of decline and to failure, because cuts equal anger and anger leads to apathy. Most folk that we meet on the doorstep do not really care about the budget macroeconomics that we debate, and they do not care who funds which service. They just want things to work, and, when things do not work, they turn towards angry politics. The antidote to that is the proper funding of local services. If we do not support the motion, councils will be forced to manage their budgets based on last year’s settlement, which I think would be irresponsible of us, but there is a long-term problem that needs to be fixed and that will need a grown-up conversation in the next session of Parliament.”
“The Government sold it as a huge tax break and something that many families would benefit from, as I am sure many did, but COSLA and others sold it as a massive funding cut. Councils are still paying the price for that lengthy freeze, which is why huge council tax hikes that none of us wanted have occurred in recent years. In the short time that I have, I will address the bigger problem that we must grapple with. We must be honest in saying that the council tax system is broken. Everybody knows it, but no one has had the guts to fix it, because there will be winners and losers if we move on from the 1991 valuations. Reform was promised two decades ago, not two years ago, but which Government in its right mind would tax people out of voting for it? Margaret Thatcher learned that the hard way in Scotland.”
“Some councils that are seeing depopulation have reasonably healthy working families and have businesses that pay business rates, but many councils are seeing soaring rises in complex care needs and growing demand from elderly populations, and that is particularly true of rural and island communities, where the cost of maintaining services is far higher The third way to solve the problem is the unholy of holies, which is to increase council tax. I will mention something that is an important part of the wider context: the £144 million that was given to councils in the 2024 budget to meet the council tax freeze was a one-off, but that followed 10 years of council tax freezes. That was a central Government policy. There was, in effect, a political decision to have a giveaway—members can call it whatever they like.”
“Four things are true: councils’ debts are increasing, their reserves are dwindling, costs are spiralling and demand is also rising. There are only three logical ways out of that mess. One is for central Government to rise to the challenge. We heard from the front bench that the Government is adamant that it is doing that, to the tune of more than £15 billion in the new financial year. That is claimed to be a 2 per cent real-terms increase, but COSLA has argued otherwise. I would like to see more information, but I am not in charge of the country’s finances. The second way to deal with the situation is that demand might fall, but that seems impossible.”
“It costs money to keep things running and to repair roads and buildings, and if the cash is not there, things will fall apart. Councils have therefore been using the powers that are available to them, which has led to an increase in debt of more than £2.5 billion in a single year alone. The current debt is more than £25 billion. The problem is that councils are spending more than £1 billion a year simply to service the debt, when we would surely all agree that that money could be better spent on delivering front-line services. I mention that because Audit Scotland is clear in warning that councils risk becoming financially unsustainable, and we, in Parliament, should take that warning seriously, because that problem cannot be fixed in a single-year budget cycle.”
“I am going to stick to facts and figures today rather than some of the politics of local government funding, and I say that as a member of the Public Audit Committee. Last month, the Accounts Commission produced a report on wider local government financing that identified a £500 million budget gap in 2024. Essentially, that is the gap between what councils are spending and the funding settlement—[Interruption.] I am sorry— there is quite a lot of noise in the chamber; I wonder whether members would mind. By 2025, that gap had risen to £640 million, and by 2027, it is expected to reach more than £1 billion. I suspect that the prospect looks even worse further down the road. The reduction in capital funding has led to many councils filling the gap through borrowing.”