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 2 of 10.
“The next session of Parliament will have to consider that issue, but it will be able to do so with the benefit of the dispassionate research evidence that Malcolm McMillan has produced, which will be available to inform debate. There has to be thorough and substantial debate on the issue, because it raises significant constitutional questions. The issue must be carefully considered by Parliament before it acts. Further, as I highlighted in response to Mr Kerr’s question, interaction with the United Kingdom Parliament would obviously be required, because this Parliament does not have the power to amend the Scotland Act in the fashion that Mr Greene’s proposal would require it to do. University of Aberdeen (Proposed Strike Action) 6.”
“I noticed yesterday that not all Conservative members support the kind of language that their leader used in Parliament last week. That is both encouraging and depressing: it is encouraging that members of the Conservative Party do not agree with their leader and the smears that he was putting out last week, and it is depressing that the leader of the Conservative Party repeated the contemptible rubbish that he said in Parliament last week. On the substantive point that Mr Greene put to me, the issue is about the publication of the research paper. I have committed that that will be undertaken. Mr Greene knows that parliamentary time is limited between now and the election.”
“If the report is published in the coming weeks, is it likely that we will see some action and resolution to the issue before the Scottish Parliament election, or is there a risk that the issue could be kicked into the long grass of the next parliamentary session? I do not think that that would benefit anyone. The First Minister: The first thing to say is that I very much welcome Mr Greene’s comments about the language that must be used in Parliament. As I indicated in my original answer, the law officers operate with integrity and entirely independently of any other person. That is what I believe, and, as I put on the record to Parliament last week, the Lord Advocate—and, for completeness, the Solicitor General—carry my complete confidence in being able to exercise those functions on the basis that has been set out.”
“I hope that I say on behalf of the whole chamber that any language that is used, by anyone in the Parliament or elsewhere, that suggests for a second that the Lord Advocate is in any way corrupt does a huge disservice to the person who holds that role and to the independence of the judiciary. We have to put that on the record as MSPs. Mr Kerr makes a valid point. The issue has been rumbling along for many years. It has been four years since Mr McMillan was tasked with finding a solution to the conundrum. I have always believed that the dual role puts the Lord Advocate in an impossible position and that it should have been taken away many years ago.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and other relevant criminal justice organisations regarding the implementation of section 34 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025. (S6O-05565)”
“I do not deny any of those issues, but none of them can be fixed in the confines of a single-year budget. My view is that creating more better-paid jobs—it really is as simple as that—is the only way that we can climb our way out of the fiscal black hole. I do not believe, and I never have, that slash- and-burn politics will fix our finances. To those members who say that we should cut the welfare bill, for example, I simply ask: whose benefits do you want to cut?”
“The Scottish Government could have a fiscal deficit of up to £5 billion by the end of this decade—as the Auditor General for Scotland tells us, as the Scottish Fiscal Commission tells us and as the Fraser of Allander Institute tells us. Those are people and organisations that I value and whose opinions I respect. My view has always been that we cannot meet the fiscal shortfall solely through higher taxation, because the extra taxes that are raised in Scotland do not always fully translate into extra real-terms cash for public services. I asked Audit Scotland, which wrote a paper on the subject, for its opinion. Members on the Labour front bench and members such as Liz Smith and Murdo Fraser often rightly make those points in the chamber. Equally, the Accounts Commission points to a £1 billion black hole in local government finances.”
“Our small businesses face uncertainty, particularly around business rates. Our social care sector is in deep crisis. Our hospices are living hand to mouth year after year and, as other members have mentioned, so are our colleges; for example, the West College Scotland campus in Greenock has closed its doors due to its crumbling buildings. None of that can be fixed in the confines of an annual budget cycle, but that does not mean that we should not try. I am not blind to the fact that Scotland’s long- term fiscal outlook is pretty grim—most independent analysts tell us that. Whichever party takes the reins of the Government in May will have very difficult choices to make.”
“They are real people in the real world—people who live with the annual budget cycles that we have to contend with—and most of them never know what is in store for them, year on year, financially. It is because of those real-world conversations that I have had in the past two weeks that I feel entirely vindicated in having sat down to negotiate with the Government. I was right to do so. I have had many issues with the SNP Government over the years. I have spent half of my political life criticising it on issues such as the ferries fiasco, access to local healthcare and the early prisoner release policy. I absolutely do not share its vision on independence, but I will make no apologies, because I will never pass up the opportunity to sit down with the Government of the day, of whichever party, to fight for the things that matter to me.”
“However, I hope that, in turn, they will genuinely respect the 300 million reasons why I might take a different view on the budget this evening. At our party spring conference in Edinburgh this weekend past, I was really grateful and humbled to meet people who came along from many charities and third sector organisations. [Interruption.] I see Mr Hoy chuckling away—they came to his party conference as well. I was grateful to meet and spend some time with them. They were from organisations such as Marie Curie, which helps people who live with cancer; the National Autistic Society, which supports young people who have it tough in life; and Hospice UK, which is fighting for our carers.”
“We all know that politics can be pretty unforgiving, and I imagine that those who have the benefit of having a Government ministerial office will know that more than most of us. I wish the cabinet secretary the very best when she leaves Parliament. Equally, as we have seen a little today, politics can sometimes be needlessly theatrical, but, at the end of the day, politics is a serious business and sometimes we just have to roll up our sleeves and get the business done. I know from speeches today and two weeks ago that some colleagues might not reach the same conclusions about the budget as I will, and I respect them for laying out their reasons—some of them passionate, some ideological and others quite misguided.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Audit Scotland will investigate investment arrangements at ScotWind. (S6T- 02917)”
“It would not be appropriate for me to give examples of that happening in any particular live case at this stage, without me understanding the impact on the proceedings, as they may have at this stage, but I am happy to share, following on from this evening, information in relation to instances where a similar process has been undertaken in relation to informing the First Minister of important stages in high-profile and sensitive cases.”
“In relation to the other point, as I have said before, it is normal practice that the sharing of that type of information is done on a case-by-case basis and on the judgment of an independent prosecutor. That is because of the fundamental importance of protecting live proceedings and ensuring that they are not compromised in any way by inappropriate commentary. It is an important and fundamental aspect of the rule of law that the importance of the contempt of court provisions and the restriction of comments on live cases bears repeating, in order to curb speculation and inappropriate commentary being applied to any live case.”
“I absolutely do not buy any accusation that the Lord Advocate is politically corrupt in this matter, but the Crown was asked why information was communicated to the First Minister about this case, and the answer seems to be that that is normal practice. The question that remains is: how common is it for the Lord Advocate to inform the First Minister about the specifics of an indictment? I still think that that merits an answer from the Lord Advocate. I will also ask a more direct question. Was the minute to the First Minister from Ms Bain offered in her capacity as the Lord Advocate, as the principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government, or both? The Lord Advocate: The advice was offered on the basis that I am the Lord Advocate and the head of the independent prosecution service.”
“It will take more than a bill to repair trust in public bodies, but killing off the bill today would send the public a message that we are simply not up to the challenge. That is not a message that the Liberal Democrats are willing to send, so we will support the bill and vote against the reasoned amendment, and I plead with all members to do the same.”
“I am surprised by the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment, because all that it has done, whether they meant it or not, is hand the Government a get- out-of-jail-free card. Sue Webber: Will the member accept an intervention? Jamie Greene: I just do not have time unless I can get it back, and I can see the Deputy Presiding Officer giving me a no to that. I appreciate that Parliament will not have enough time to progress the bill during this session, but that is not Katy Clark’s fault; it is a problem with this Parliament and Government. I gently suggest that the Conservatives should withdraw their amendment or vote against it. I know that that is a bit unorthodox, but I have done it myself. It is a bit awkward, but it would be worth it on this occasion, because I want to see the bill progress. I am going to finish where I started.”
“Those include the improper spending at the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, the golden goodbyes at Ferguson Marine and Caledonian MacBrayne, the cost overruns at the Cairngorm Mountain Railway and the credit card spending sprees at Historic Environment Scotland. All of that was uncovered under FOI, and Katy Clark’s bill will strengthen the ability of all committees and all members to properly scrutinise decisions, not least through its creation of a presumption in favour of disclosure. I am not saying that FOI requests always give us good data. Pages 1 to 10 of the response to my latest FOI request about CalMac payoffs are all redacted. FOI is not the be-all and end-all, but underneath that black ink is information that we ought to have access to.”
“The bill would resolve many of the outstanding issues with FOI legislation, not least because it would require public bodies to appoint a freedom of information officer who could be held to account for the openness and transparency of their organisation. This all matters, because FOI legislation gives the public, journalists and even we politicians the tools that we need to scrutinise public bodies in a way that no other method can, if we are honest about it, particularly when the parliamentary questions that we submit are responded to with one-line answers. Mr Leonard spoke about the work of the Public Audit Committee. Some of the things that FOI requests have helped us to uncover have been on the front pages of newspapers for months.”
“Those bodies too often hide behind redactions and bureaucratic points about what is or is not covered under the current, out-of-date legislation. Last year, the Information Commissioner received nearly 600 appeals after members of the public were refused the information that they had asked for in FOI requests. Thirty per cent of those were because the public body chose to withhold information. A further 35 per cent were because the body failed to respond to the request at all, and 10 per cent were because the public body claimed that it did not even hold the information. That is ridiculous and disgraceful. Therefore the new criminal offence of destroying records, which would be introduced by Katy Clark’s bill, is much needed and would be very welcome.”
“When trust in politics is pretty much at an all-time low, we should all be doing everything that we can to gain back that trust. It is a really bad look for any party, Parliament or Government to vote against extending freedom of information rights. The stage 1 report on the bill concluded by saying that, although the committee agreed on the need for such reform—reform that should have happened years ago—it did not consider the bill to be the most effective way of achieving it. It also stated, as other members have, that we just do not have the time to do so. I completely disagree. Scottish Liberal Democrats will be voting for the bill at stage 1. Why? It would provide a long- overdue and much-needed opportunity to make Scotland’s public bodies more transparent.”
“I asked for extra cash—£6.5 million in the draft budget, topped up today by the nearly £3 million announced by the First Minister. That takes us to about £9.5 million, which will help places such as Ardgowan hospice in my community. I received an email this afternoon from Hospice UK. It was just one line, thanking me for fighting its case. The question is, how many other parties got one of those emails this afternoon? I know that the budget is all theatre, but it does matter. The reason that this stuff matters is that every penny counts towards supporting—”
“No, I do not think that it will, but it matters to those care providers who have been lobbying us fiercely these past two weeks. On the issue of waiting lists, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment waiting times in Scotland are ridiculously and unacceptably high. Some people are waiting for six years, and 65,000 people are on an assessment waiting list. That is why the issue has been the subject of a long-standing Lib Dem campaign, and we are proud of that. The extra £7.5 million that has been announced that we negotiated will help to tackle the backlog, but we need to see progress speed up. Every one of us has a hospice in our local community. They provide invaluable care for people who are at the end of their lives. It is a very live debate, but they did need extra cash.”
“Looking at the polls, I do not blame them, because the only cosy consensus that I can see is on the complete evaporation of members on the benches opposite. Where are we on the budget? On health, properly funded social care is important. Why? Because it frees up beds in hospitals and it gets people out of hospital and back home. Social care providers told us that they wanted a fairer funding deal to pay their staff properly. Let us be honest— the Government mucked this up the first time. The Government knew it, the sector knew it, and so did I. That is why the issue went top of my list of asks. That extra £20 million to ensure that every social care worker in Scotland is paid the real living wage matters. Will it fix the wider issues in the care sector?”
“The late Jim Wallace commented on the great cross-party efforts that brought about devolution in the first place. He said that he hoped that we could have a “new style of politics”, because the founding principles of this Parliament were collaboration, consensus and compromise. There were cross- party talks in a Parliament in which no single party was ever meant to have a majority. When the Parliament first convened, Donald Dewar, another great, said that we should be “striving to do right by the people of Scotland”. However, some parties choose not to engage. They choose not to sit down and negotiate and fight their corner for the causes that matter to them. Perhaps they have their sights set on May’s election.”
“To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will make further changes to the draft budget 2026-27 published in January in relation to business rates, hospices and the care sector. (S6F-04670)”
“If we want to restore public trust, we must have accountability and honesty—and that must start here in this chamber, now. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 15:19”
“I have no doubt that patients who are there now are being treated well and carefully by our amazing NHS staff, but ministers must validate that safety in public, explicitly, because the Government must restore trust in the hospital. The reason why the safety and public confidence oversight group must not mark its own homework relates exactly to the issue of trust. Years of denial from the board have undermined the public’s trust. The board did not take people’s concerns seriously, and now, for some, it is too late. With that in mind, we are happy to support Labour’s motion, and we thank Labour for bringing it to the chamber. We will also support the Conservative amendment. However, we will not support the Government amendment.”
“The lady told me: “I’m living with PTSD following the mistreatment of my care … I do not know what the future holds for me and whether the treatment by the specialists … will ultimately be successful”, but “I certainly do not believe is that there has been any cultural change” in that health board. “They are not transparent and they are evasive”. I have not read out that quote to point fingers at individuals on the current NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde board, but it hammers home the point that the central issue of trust is at the heart of this ordeal. That constituent of mine does not trust the health board to do the right thing, and she is not alone. We must start by addressing the most important issue: patient safety. The Scottish Government must promptly and publicly confirm the safety of every ward and unit in this hospital.”
“We often come here to criticise the Government about capital projects, but we are talking not about a delayed and overbudget ferry or prison but about a hospital. This is about lives that were lost because something somewhere went wrong. Those families deserve to know exactly what went wrong and, more important, who was responsible for it. Anything less should not and will not be tolerated by any of us. Someone who was affected by this got in touch with me anonymously yesterday. She was treated at the hospital as a patient and has since developed numerous infections, so she still requires on-going treatment.”
“Do people out there trust that the hospitals that they attend to get better or that look after their loved ones are, ultimately, safe? Do the public trust that NHS boards, the Government and those at the very top will hold up their hands and take responsibility, so that none of this ever happens again? Those questions are important, because those who lost loved ones were forced to campaign for answers, for the truth and for accountability. They never had the chance to grieve properly. Many of us in the chamber, including me, will have had loved ones in that hospital, and we trusted that hospital to look after them, care for them and help them to get better. For some families, their loved ones did not come out. Trust has been shattered by this scandal—“scandal” is the only word that I can find that is fitting to describe what has happened.”
“As others have done, I start by sharing the sadness of colleagues about the death of Jeane Freeman, and I send my condolences on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Those of us in the chamber who lived through the Covid years will remember that they were dark and difficult, but no one ever doubted Jeane’s commitment to making Scotland as safe as it could be during that time. We send our warmest thoughts to her family, her partner and her colleagues in the chamber. The crux of this debate is the issue of trust. Do the public trust our institutions to properly investigate what went so badly wrong at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital? Do the public trust any of us here today to unearth what went wrong, or who knew what, without the usual political point scoring that normally comes with health debates?”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will reconsider its stated position of opposing the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. (S6O- 05438)”
“None of us wants any business to close as a result of business rates going up through revaluation. Ivan McKee: The member makes a valid point. The self-catering sector has seen an average increase of 88 per cent, which is significant. Not all businesses will pay that—far from it—because of the relief package that is in place, but there has been a change in the methodology that assessors use in the sector. I have met representatives of the sector and the assessors to discuss the issue. We will continue to engage with the sector to take into account the points that the member has raised.”
“Tourism, hospitality and self-catering businesses in particular have been absolutely clear with us as MSPs that they believe that the methodology behind the revaluations has hit some sectors hard. They are looking not at averages but at the massive spikes that some sectors are facing. They have been clear that some businesses will go bust as a result. I do not think that any of us wants that, so surely the cost of doing something will far outweigh the cost of doing nothing. The best course of action would be a complete postponement of the new rates, to give businesses some breathing space for a year. If that cannot happen, will the minister at least agree to continue to work with me as part of our budget negotiations to put as much support as possible back into these much-needed businesses?”
“Presiding Officer, “The irony is that those who complain about our waning influence on the world are the same ones who complain about our development budget. Our aid commitments give us soft power. We should aspire to lead the world in aid and development.” Those are not my words—they are not even the words of a Liberal Democrat. They are the words of former Tory Prime Minister David Cameron. Does the cabinet secretary agree with him? I do. Angus Robertson: I agree with Jamie Greene, David Cameron and all the political parties in the chamber that have supported international development over the past 20 years. It is simply very disappointing to see the Conservative Party walking away from that consensus. Social Impact Bonds 6.”
“Although diagnosis and assessment are important, we are taking a needs-based approach that recognises that assessment and diagnosis can be part of addressing a person’s needs. I am grateful to the member’s colleague, Alex Cole-Hamilton, for his engagement in the work of the cross-party summit, as members from other parties have also done. I look forward to the summit being reconvened before the Parliament dissolves, so that it can discuss those matters further. Eye Hospital Replacement (Edinburgh) 6.”
“Thousands of people are still on waiting lists for assessments. A constituent of mine in East Dunbartonshire has been waiting for four years. That is simply not good enough. The Lib Dems have asked for the Government to focus on that issue, and I am pleased to see that £7.5 million has been allocated in the draft budget. However, all that people want to know is when the waiting list numbers will come down. Tom Arthur: This is a complex and challenging subject, and I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for their constructive engagement on it. We are considering ways in which we can support assessment and diagnosis, but at the heart of our approach there must be a recognition of the significant systemic and societal complexity of the issue.”
“We feel that it is particularly important to support the industry right now as it is seeing a massive impact from the tariffs, with significant job losses and economic damage on a weekly basis. The figures are quite clear, and now is the time to support our domestic production of whisky because of those international risks. Grooming Gangs 3.”
“The way to beat economic bullying is to make trade easier. With the threat of tariffs looming, Scotland, the UK and the EU must unite in their stance against US protectionism. On a practical level, will the Scottish Government join the Scottish Liberal Democrats in calling on the UK Government to implement an immediate cut of 5 per cent to whisky duty to show that we stand behind our whisky industry and to show President Trump that free trade will always trump isolationism? Kate Forbes: I confirm to the member that, in previous budgets, we have been very robust in representing the Scottish whisky industry and calling for fair duty and excise. That is on the record, and that goes back a few years, when letters in my name were drafted to the UK Government expressing that position.”
“As I said, we lack information on the UK Government’s intentions; it has been opaque about whether it will go further. We found out about the possible changes through the press rather than through any communication from the UK Government, which is disappointing. I reiterate the point that, if further consequentials should flow from a U-turn by the UK Government on the position in England, we would want to support the hospitality sector further. I have written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to ask for an urgent meeting to discuss the issue. My colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland are also keen to do so.”
“However, too many businesses, particularly in hospitality and self-catering, still face choppy waters ahead. Will the cabinet secretary continue to work with me in the coming weeks to see how further targeted additional support might give more Scottish businesses the relief that they desperately need and deserve? Shona Robison: I thank Jamie Greene for his very positive and constructive engagement on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and for welcoming many of the responses to asks that feature in the budget. As he has recognised, my statement set out substantial support for business. I also recognise the importance of the independent Gill review of valuation methods for hospitality businesses, which the hospitality sector is very keen on. That work will continue at pace. Of course I agree to continue to work with Mr Greene and others.”
“The question is not about how the budget passes but about what people will get out of it if it does. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are in the business of getting stuff done. We have been clear with the SNP that a conversation could be had should we see movement on our key areas of priority: fixing social care; funding our colleges; providing flexible childcare; supporting people with neurodivergence, hospices, small businesses and young entrepreneurs; and ensuring that every young person has a home of their own. I am pleased to see that many of the Liberal Democrats’ asks feature in today’s budget, but the eyes of Scotland’s business community are also on us. It is good to see positive steps on rates relief that many, including the Liberal Democrats, have called for.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the former chief executive of CalMac received a severance package exceeding £170,000, including whether this complied with the severance provisions set out in the Scottish public finance manual. (S6T-02834)”
“I know that we can do that if we work together, but that involves some compromise and constructive conversation. I hope that we can finally have some of that in today’s debate. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:27”
“Jamie Greene: The minister will have time in summing up to respond to my points, and, if we had had more time in today’s debate, I would have been happy to take interventions. We need to pause the implementation of the revaluation right now. I note the many calls from others to cap the increases. There are also many calls to speed up the appeals process. Those calls all deserve serious consideration. Doing nothing is simply not an option—time is something that small businesses do not have. I fear that, for some, this will be the final straw and they will close their doors. We must give them some breathing space. Let us look them in the eye and say that we, as a Parliament, on a cross-party basis, will give them every opportunity to succeed.”
“There is a wee shop, the Pirate and Bluebelle in Gourock, which is closing its doors in just 10 days’ time after 12 years in business. I am immensely sad about that. Rising costs and falling footfall have hit it hard. The two people who run it have chucked their life into this small business. That is just one example of many across the country. Woe betide anyone who knocks on doors during the election period and says that they backed doing nothing on the NDR reassessment. They will have to look those businesses in the eye. Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Greene: It is clear to me that, at the very least, one thing that we can do right now is put a pause on the implementation of the revaluation. Ivan McKee: If the member is going to talk about that point, he could at least take an intervention on it.”
“I have to say that the minister’s response to others who have spoken today, that the valuation of a non-domestic property is solely a matter for the independent assessor, is a very technocratic response to what is a moral question for us. It just does not cut it, because we have seen egregious examples of how the reassessment is failing businesses. When many businesses are knocking on our doors and filling up our inboxes, warning about the damage that those rises will do, we have a duty to listen and to act. To just say that we are aware of those concerns does not cut it either, I am afraid— Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Greene: Not with the time that I have. The perfect storm of rising bills and costs is proving too much. I will name one example from my region.”
“Changes to national insurance cost British businesses an extra £28 billion last year alone. An analysis shows that Scottish employers are the second-hardest hit by that rise, behind only those in London. Now, many will have to wrestle with an enormous hike in non- domestic rates. As has been mentioned, the FSB has warned that some will see their bills soar by 400 per cent. Examples from the Scottish Hospitality Group show that some businesses are looking at increases of more than 550 per cent. I cannot see how we, as a Parliament, can sit back and say or do nothing on this issue. It absolutely merits time in the chamber today and it is absolutely serious. We all have small businesses in our constituencies and regions that will be affected, and some will close. That is the sad reality if we do nothing.”
“Running a small business is not easy. It often involves taking a chance. The rewards can be great, but the risk is great, too. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy—I hope that, at the very least, that is something that we all agree on. Of course, that means that we also have a collective responsibility to tip the scales as far as we can to support small businesses right across the country. As a different SNP minister said to me, words matter, but so do actions. On this issue, I absolutely agree. Today’s debate is urgent, as Mr Fraser says. Businesses have had it tough since the pandemic. Many simply did not make it. We all know of examples of that. Small businesses are now estimated to be paying an extra £5,000 a year in energy costs. Commercial energy rates are brutal for small businesses.”