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 5 of 10.
“I have probably spent more time than many travelling to Port Glasgow in the years that I have been a minister, for very obvious reasons. The member mentioned a number of different points that have driven the challenges for town centres, including the move to online shopping, which is a challenge for the retail sector in particular. I am very committed to working with local authorities and local leaders on the ground to deliver master plans or transformation for those areas. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 4 was withdrawn. Small Business Support (Coatbridge and Chryston) 5.”
“I hope that the Deputy First Minister will be as appalled as I was to learn that Port Glasgow was awarded the dreaded carbuncle award for the most dismal town in Scotland. Thankfully, sense has been seen. There has been a huge U-turn, and the award has been ditched in favour of the heart on your sleeve award. However, there is a serious point behind all this. Many small towns and high streets feel unloved and forgotten, and their Government in Edinburgh feels distant to them. What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure that the so-called carbuncles of Scotland’s retail deserts can be turned into busy, buoyant and bustling town centres instead? Kate Forbes: I put on record how much I love Port Glasgow—I am a huge fan of Port Glasgow.”
“Two members of those families sent me a quote that they want me to read out. It simply says this: “We implore you to vote through this bill for this and all the positive changes that it can bring.” I know that, when I next meet them, I will look them in the eye and say, “I did.” Members, please, if you do not listen to me, listen to them, to whom the bill passing matters most. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 15:54”
“I say to those people in the public gallery, who live and breathe that trauma every day, that it is to them that we owe the most credit in getting to where we are today; it is their relentless campaigning to put victims first that has finally paid off. I made them a promise, face to face, that I would fight to change the law in their favour, and I sincerely hope that I have met their expectations. I believe that there are members in the Parliament who would never vote for this bill, whatever its content, but I say to them that, if they vote against it, they are voting against their own manifesto commitments. If they vote against the bill, they are voting against every positive change that we made yesterday, and they are ignoring the pleas from those whose voices matter most— victims themselves.”
“They will have exclusion zones, if required or necessary. They will be given reasons for those decisions. They will be guided through their justice journey, and they will know that, if the killer of their loved one refuses to co- operate, that person will stay behind bars. Every political party represented in the Parliament, to some degree or another, supported the changes and voted for them. They were constructive and respectful negotiations, because that is how you get things done from the Opposition benches in the Parliament. I am grateful to the members who backed my proposals, but I am more grateful to the people who let me sit in their living room, with a mug of tea in hand, while they recounted the absolute horror of the crimes that they or their loved ones had been victims of.”
“However, it is incredibly difficult to get a member’s bill through the Parliament, so it was perhaps serendipitous for me that the Scottish Government introduced its own criminal justice reform bill. The Government soon realised, however, that the word “victims” needed to be at the front of the name of the bill, as it had been in mine, so it changed the title. They say that imitation is the best form of flattery, but I do not really care, because what matters to me is getting those proposals into law, by whichever means possible. Yesterday, we did just that. Now, victims in all solemn cases will be able to make an impact statement to court. They will have to be informed of a decision not to prosecute a case. They will have their safety and security put front and centre of parole decisions.”
“There will be changes to parole decisions and the rules around those and changes giving victims a greater voice in court and more information, not less. I joined the Criminal Justice Committee back in 2021, when I was then shadow justice secretary. Week in, week out, we took evidence from ministers, lawyers and academics, but what sticks in my mind the most about that period was the evidence sessions that we took in private—the horrific stories of abuse, assault, rape and murder. I first consulted on my member’s bill back in 2021. With so many wrongs to right, I understood the gravity of the task in hand, the lack of victims’ voices and the endless traumatisation in the justice system. I was simply appalled at what I heard, to be honest.”
“I am often asked, when schools come to visit, “What is the best part of being an MSP? Is it helping constituents? Is it meeting inspiring people? Is it changing the law?” Today, I say that all three are true, because every one of the 160 amendments that we debated yesterday has real-world consequences: from the creation of a victims commissioner to the removal of the centuries-old not proven verdict and other sweeping changes to our justice system, the likes of which this Parliament has not seen since its very creation. In the case of my amendments, there will be the introduction of Suzanne’s law, commanding the confidence of those to whom it matters most, and the introduction of Michelle’s law.”
“Its purpose is to inform victims at the earliest possible stage about their journey through the justice process. 14:30”
“Further, it will detail “the mechanisms available to a victim for upholding those rights”. It is open ended, so that the commissioner can consult more widely and add other matters into the charter as they consider appropriate. The charter should be promoted by stakeholders once it is completed, so I have lodged amendments 4 and 5, which will place a duty on the commissioner to ensure that the charter, when completed, is promoted by partners. For example, that information could be issued as a booklet or pamphlet to people when they report a crime at police stations, or it could be distributed by solicitors or lawyers, by charities in the third sector that support victims, by the courts or even by the national health service or at other touch points where people interact with a public service.”
“It will outline the interactions that a victim might have with the system at various points as they go through their journey of reporting a crime and being identified as a victim, through to the relevant court proceedings and sentencing, and even through parole and thereafter. In essence, it outlines that person’s various touch points with the system. The charter will explain “the communications which a victim will receive in the course of those interactions”. We know that, at various points, victims are communicated with by various bodies and agencies, to a meaningful degree or not, as we will come on to discuss in relation to later groups of amendments. The charter must outline what victims’ rights are throughout those interactions. From feedback that I have had, I know that those rights are not always obvious.”
“In preparing the charter, the commissioner will have to consult a number of key people, including victims, victim support organisations and criminal justice bodies and partners. Amendment 9 sets out what will be in the charter—that is important. I was unusually specific in my related stage 2 amendment about what I thought the charter should or should not contain in order for it to be a meaningful and helpful document and not simply a repetition of other pieces of advice that are in the public domain. Unusually, the Government accepted verbatim what I proposed, which has carried through to stage 3. The charter will outline for victims—who often have had very little or no experience of the criminal justice system—an end-to-end description of the criminal justice system in Scotland, which differs from that of other parts of the UK.”
“I understand and accept that there is a plurality of views on the establishment of a victims commissioner. A number of victim support organisations are in favour; others are not. There has been a mixed response to the Criminal Justice Committee’s report on the bill. Notwithstanding that, should such a commissioner be created as a result of today’s votes, I feel that it is imperative that the commissioner has a specific and clear task to do on day 1 of taking office, which is to create the victims charter. I will talk briefly through the amendments. Amendment 9 is the substantive amendment in the group. It will insert a new section into the bill that outlines a requirement for the new victims and witnesses commissioner to prepare and publish a victims charter within a year of this section of the bill coming into force.”
“I take the opportunity to quickly thank, at the start of today’s debate, the Parliament’s clerks, who have assisted a number of back benchers and Opposition members with the drafting of amendments where we did not have the support of the Government. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and her team, including her civil servants, who have assisted on areas of mutual interest in drafting amendments. In particular, I thank my staff, who have worked incredibly hard over the past few weeks and months to assist with today’s amendments. We come neatly to the first group. It is on the victims charter, which is a duty that will be placed on the victims commissioner, should such a commissioner be created through the course of today.”
“First, let us not underestimate the value of the Commonwealth, which has a GDP of £15 trillion and 2.5 billion consumers. Secondly, small and medium-sized enterprises make up 99 per cent of Scotland’s businesses, but only 10 per cent of those are exporting. That figure must increase, and I would like the Government to produce a co-ordinated strategy for how we do that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:01”
“We published a formal review of the export strategy in 2023. I want to clarify that, today, we are discussing only our international priority markets. That is what the update document relates to. We thought that we would make sure that the maps were colourful, so that members knew exactly what we were talking about. However, the point has obviously been missed, so I will repeat it: today, we are simply considering our priority markets. Jamie Greene: I would say that every market should be a priority, even those that are least visible on our radar. For example, the value of Scotch whisky exports to the Taiwanese market alone has gone up by 45 per cent to £290 million. That is nothing to do with any bilateral trade deals; it is simply a result of the good relationship with the buyers there. I have two final points to make.”
“There has been a little bit of critique of the six- point export plan, which feels a bit more like a relaunch. Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Greene: I will be happy to, in a second. The target was to increase the value of international exports to 25 per cent of GDP by 2029. Of course, we took a hit on exports in the Covid years, when the figure dipped to 19 per cent. In 2019, it was 20 per cent. I believe that the cabinet secretary has just said that we are still at 20 per cent. Six years on from 2019—I have noted the issues that we had during Covid—we are five percentage points away from hitting the target. We need to ramp up our activity in that area. I still think that we can get to 25 per cent by 2029. Kate Forbes: I should have made this intervention in Daniel Johnson’s speech.”
“Costs are rising and we are affected by decisions that are being made by other politicians thousands of miles away. When I speak to businesses that export, the two big things that they say they face are rising insurance costs and shipping costs. We all know what is happening in the Red Sea. We have to face up to and work together on those international out-of-control things. The other thing that I hear from businesses is that what they are absolutely sick and tired of is both of Scotland’s Governments being at constant loggerheads with each other. I understand that some good cross-party working is taking place behind the scenes, but businesses want to see Government ministers from Scotland and Westminster going out into the world hand in hand to say publicly that Scotland is open for business.”
“Businesses are looking for two things from their Government. One is a wider strategy, because a strategy in one sector has to be part of a much bigger picture. It also has to fit in with the transport and infrastructure strategy, the digital connectivity strategy and the energy strategy. How do we keep companies’ costs down as best we can? It needs to sit in the round and be part of the whole. I will talk about whisky exports, because we have talked a little bit about trade deals, and I want to mention them. We are facing international headwinds. There are things outside of the SNP Government’s control—I understand that—and there are even things outside of the UK Labour Government’s control. We are in an extremely volatile world market.”
“All that is to be admired and acknowledged, because those businesses have got on with it without the intervention of Government. We have talked a lot already this afternoon about where we need the Government to intervene on failing businesses, but those businesses tend to be the businesses of old, the industries of old and the technologies of old. A small country such as Scotland has an opportunity to be at the forefront—the avant- garde—of new and emerging technologies. That means having a Government strategy—and a strategy is not the same thing as spin. I agree with quite a lot of what is in the Government motion, but it does not contain a huge amount of substance on the wider strategy. There has already been some critique about those lovely coloured-in documents, as Murdo Fraser referred to them.”
“Then there is our green energy production. Some of our experts are going all over the world on business-class flights to teach people in other countries how best to manage offshore wind, carbon storage and capture and battery technology. We should be leading the way in hydrogen and in other forms of renewable energy. Again, there is so much potential in that area, but the conversation too often focuses on the one or two big-ticket items—although I have nothing against the oil and gas industry. Let us look at some other industries, such as gaming, animation and film production. Those industries are booming, too. Just across the street from the Parliament, there is a company that has done incredibly well in the gaming industry, and parts of Scotland are growing in the media landscape with Hollywood film studios producing films here.”
“However, over the years, I have tried to look beyond the traditional Scottish exports of tartan and tweed and look at some of our emerging markets. Scotland is leading the way in many markets. Undoubtedly, financial services—our expertise and product—is one of our biggest exports. We do not talk about life sciences often. Perhaps it has had a controversial past, but the pharmaceutical industry and other such industries are doing incredibly well in the west of Scotland, too. Our space and satellite industry is another booming area that we should be very proud of. We are producing—and soon we will be launching— satellites that are smaller than a microwave. All that ingenuity originated in Scotland, and that manufacturing is going on in Scotland as well. It should be exported, but not enough of that is happening.”
“I am pleased to be speaking in my eighth debate this week—it has been quite a week. I will try to stick to exports and not confuse it with any of the other topics that we have spoken about. This is quite a good debate. Thursday afternoon slots are not always well occupied, but this slot— the graveyard slot in the Parliament—is a good one, because it gives us a chance to air issues such as this one in a constructive and often good- humoured manner. As has been said, Scotland’s exports are some of the finest in the world. We talk about that often, particularly in cross-party groups that have an interest. Whisky and salmon often come up when we meet people overseas and talk about great Scottish products.”
“Of course, we would all like further investment in Lochaber, but we have to recognise that, had it not been for the steps that the Government has taken—again, I repeat that we have not spent any public money and, indeed, we have received fees worth many millions in addition to all the guaranteed payments that have been made over that nine-year period—we would not be having this conversation, because that site would not be here, either.”
“Finally, I heard no mention of the new billet facility at Lochaber, which, as we all know, is much needed for the future success of the business at that site. Ivan McKee: Scottish Enterprise is in discussions with GFG about the £7 million loan. Again, I think that we would all agree that that was the right thing to do, otherwise we would not be having those conversations, because the plant would have been shut for many years now. As I indicated earlier, it is important that the business gets up and running, operates and generates revenue so that it is in a position to repay that loan. I also stated in my response that the company is expecting to reopen the plant within the next few weeks to supply plate to Navantia, and it has indicated that it has resolved the working capital issue to allow it to do so.”
“The problem is that the Scottish Government has never been up front about its dealings with Mr Gupta. We still do not know whether the £7 million loan from Scottish Enterprise will be repaid, and we have no idea when the plant will be operational again. There are still far too many unanswered questions from the minister’s statement, which I am afraid has told us nothing. First, will the minister be willing to publish the minutes of his meetings this year with Mr Kabel and Mr Gupta? Secondly, does he believe that the company has the funds necessary to buy the materials needed to fulfil the Navantia order, which seems to be the reason for the current impasse and why the workers have been furloughed?”
“To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will review its policy on public sector settlement agreements, in light of reports that £4 million of public money was spent on public sector pay-offs in 2023-24. (S6F-04291)”
“The previous UK Government failed spectacularly to do so. If the new one does not succeed, more people wearing turquoise rosettes will be sitting in the chamber next May than those wearing blue ones. We all know who the real winners would be in that scenario. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:28”
“I vividly recall sitting on the Conservative front bench, next to the well-respected Donald Cameron, during a debate in which we agreed that such a proposal merited genuine discussion with the then UK Tory Government. Research tells us that if we allowed asylum seekers to work after six months in the country, it would generate £16 million of economic growth in Scotland alone. If we allowed it from day 1, the figure would double. If we allowed it across the UK, the gains would be huge—more tax revenues, more money flowing back into the economy and more people filling our skills gap. It would just make sense. People’s concerns about immigration are real, but the way to deal with the problem of thousands of people stuck in asylum hotels is not to shut the hotels but to clear the backlog and process their claims quickly.”
“All the while, qualified doctors, dentists, entrepreneurs and engineers are sitting in a Holiday Inn somewhere, living on £10 a week and waiting in a Home Office backlog—sometimes for years—that leaves skilled asylum seekers unable to work or claim universal credit, with nothing to do and no money to spend. That is the reality for asylum seekers in Scotland. Therefore, here is an idea: instead of forcing them to live off the state, as it is often described, why do we not let them stand on their own two feet? Why do we not let them take individual responsibility? Why do we not let them contribute to Scotland’s economy? Why do we not let asylum seekers work? That is not a woke question; it makes economic sense.”
“The Parliament should not be deaf to people’s concerns about immigration, but neither should it be afraid to debate them. It is true that people cannot get a general practitioner appointment or see their dentist. Yes, they struggle to get decent housing that is suitable for them and their children. Yes, they see people who have absolutely nothing to do and nowhere to go, wandering around their town centres. It is easy for political parties to blame such situations on those who can do nothing about it. The reason for people being unable to get GP appointments is that there are not enough GPs. The reason for their being unable to get dentist appointments is that there are not enough dentists. The reason for their being unable to get houses is that there are not enough affordable homes in Scotland.”
“That is a valid debate, because it is true that our local councils are in a perilous financial situation and have been for years, but what does that have to do with the housing of asylum seekers? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities tells us why councils are in a perilous position. Over many years, council tax freezes have led to revenue shortfalls. Councils must now do more with less. This year alone, councils are plugging a black hole of more than £600 million. Long-delayed reforms to our outdated council tax system, which were promised nearly two decades ago, are yet to materialise. When I sat on the Conservative benches, we did not blame asylum seekers for councils’ financial position; we blamed the Scottish Government. I wonder what has changed.”
“The better side of my nature would like to think that, when the Tory shadow cabinet discussed how it would use its precious party business time, some voices around the table wanted to talk about national health service waiting times, education standards, the ferry scandal or Scotland’s mental health crisis. However, I can say with a high degree of certainty that somebody—I suspect that it was not an MSP—said, “Let’s talk about asylum seekers. All 6,000 of them in Scotland.” I think that, deep down, we all know why. We all saw the same poll last Friday, which is perhaps why half of the Tory seats here in the chamber are empty right now. The motion refers to the number of asylum seekers becoming “financially unsustainable” for our local councils.”
“Where does that leave education, transport, preventative healthcare and all the other measures? It is about time that we got people back into the workforce by supporting those who need it most. The reality is that there is a £4.7 billion gap, productivity is lagging, and we are spending more than we are getting in income. That has to be addressed. We cannot talk, argue or borrow our way out of the problem. We will have to sit down as grown-ups in the room and agree a way out of it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate, with back-bench speeches of up to four minutes. 15:20”
“That is important because lack of economic activity affects how much money the Government has to spend. Taking more than £3 billion in additional tax revenues due to tax differentials north of the border has resulted in only just over £600 million of cash being available for the Government to spend. That is 20 per cent—20p in every extra pound that is paid by Scots. We have to look at that properly. We also need to look at spend. The welfare budget is sitting at more than £6 billion and is due to rise to £9 billion. At the minute, it is 15 per cent of the entire budget, and it will rise. The health and social care budget is sitting at around 40 per cent of the entire budget. If we put those two areas together, 70 per cent of Scotland’s budget will be spent on two portfolios.”
“What could the Government have done with that extra £300 million? What extra public services could it have supported with it? HMP Glasgow is 10 times over budget—the figure sits at nearly £1 billion of spending. We can argue about the reasons why that has happened, but think of the money that has been wasted on those inflationary costs. The A9 is already more than £100 million over budget. I suspect that that figure will rise massively, if it ever gets completed. We cannot blame all those costs on inflation, because had the projects been delivered on time—when inflation was incredibly low and money was cheap to borrow—it would not have mattered. We need to improve Scotland’s productivity, which grew by only 1 per cent each year from 2008 to 2023.”
“In the motion, another interesting point that I agree with is about scrutiny. I have a lot of respect for Audit Scotland’s role, but its powers are somewhat clipped at the moment, and I want to see them expanded. For example, there should be mandatory deadlines for ministerial responses to Audit Scotland’s section 22 reports. There should be stronger enforcement powers, in particular when issues of poor performance or financial mismanagement have been identified. I also want the Parliament’s committees to have enhanced scrutiny powers to ensure that any recommendations that they make actually lead to reform, because too many reports just sit on ministers’ shelves. Too many projects have gone massively over budget. The new ferries were supposed to cost less than £100 million; the bill is now sitting at more than £400 million.”
“When we look at the state of Scotland’s finances, we are talking about whether we have enough schoolteachers, whether people with mental health problems or additional support needs are being helped back into the workplace and whether there is enough money to build new ferries for our island communities or enough to fund outdoor education. Apparently, there is never enough money to do it all, but the numbers are serious, and the Conservatives are right to bring them to the Parliament’s attention today. By 2030, there will be a £4.7 billion funding gap. That is the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s own number; it is not a made-up political number for a Daily Mail headline but a real, independently forecast number. The Government needs to have a harsh look at the reality, because it is in denial about the figures.”
“Today’s debate has turned into the usual constitutional battle, as these things do, but the Parliament needs to have an honest and grown-up conversation about the reality of Scotland’s finances, and I would like to think that we can do so. I say that not as someone taking a constitutional or political point of view but as a member of the Public Audit Committee, which is a great committee because we get sight of and scrutinise all the numbers, many of which have been quoted by speakers in the debate. We look at the numbers objectively and fairly, as does Audit Scotland. We are talking not only about figures on a balance sheet but about people.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the availability of residential social care beds in the west of Scotland, in light of reported closures and service reductions in the region. (S6O-04911)”
“The Government faces a simple choice: to let the bill fall and disrespect the will of Parliament or to prove to Scotland’s youth and our outdoor education sector that it supports them. I make a plea to the Government today: listen to the will of the Parliament and get on with it. 17:55”
“The Government can disagree with the figures that have been proposed, but it is incumbent upon the Government to come back with alternative proposals, to do its own modelling and to lodge a financial resolution that will allow the bill to progress to the next stage. The bill might fall at stage 3—who knows what will happen at that point?—but let us at least have that debate and give the bill its due process. Outdoor education improves confidence, boosts attainment and supports wellbeing. It helps to prevent future challenges in health, justice and social care. As we all know, that is backed by evidence: every £1 that is invested in outdoor education saves £3 to £5 in other areas of the public sector. That is an investment in our children’s future and it is smart public spending.”
“In fact, as Liz Smith said, it would be the first time in the Parliament’s history that a bill was vetoed after stage 1 by process. That would be a betrayal of the Parliament, of the young people who would benefit from the legislation and of the outdoor education sector, which absolutely backs the bill. Let us not forget that it was the Government’s own promise to commit to the legislation. The question is not just about whether there is political consensus, which I think there is; the question is whether the Government is walking away from its own pledges and manifesto commitments. Of course, we can talk about affordability— every policy comes with a price tag—but, as Douglas Ross said, the proposals and the revised costings are a drop in the ocean and a small price to pay when we consider the benefits.”
“In March this year, 64 members of the Parliament voted in favour of the bill at stage 1 and only one voted against it. That was a powerful endorsement of the general principles of the bill and the aim that every young person, no matter what their background, should have a guaranteed opportunity of a residential outdoor experience. I would go so far as to say to the minister that, if we held that vote today, the motion on the bill would pass again, which would tell the Government exactly what it needs to hear. If the bill falls because the Government does not lodge a financial resolution, it will not be because the Parliament rejected it; it will be because the Government is not willing to negotiate in good faith to allow it to go through the process that it should be afforded.”
“As many others did, I talked about my experiences and about why the bill matters, and those arguments are just as relevant today. However, today’s debate is different for three reasons. The first of those is the urgency of the matter and the timescales that we are looking at. The second is the process that is involved. Let us not forget that the Parliament has a three-stage process for making legislation, including members’ bills, and it is absolutely right and proper that we give such bills the opportunity to progress. The third reason is the will of Parliament and Government. Where is the will in Government to progress the legislation? I have a horrible feeling that it does not exist any more, because the good faith that was promised after stage 1 has yet to come to fruition.”
“I pay tribute to Liz Smith not just for securing tonight’s debate, but for her relentless work on this issue. It is a true passion for Ms Smith, and it is a worthy passion. I supported the general principles of her bill when I sat next to her on the Conservative benches, and I still support those general principles today. I also pay tribute to the amazing residential centres right across Scotland, particularly those that are in my region—the two on Arran, the Field Studies Council centre in Millport and the others in neighbouring Dunoon. They offer extraordinary potential for the young people in my region, particularly those who have hitherto had little opportunity to experience the outdoors and active education. I spoke in the stage 1 debate on the bill.”
“However, I want to see the decarbonisation strategy being developed, and local anecdotal reliability and punctuality issues being addressed, because people are still not happy about certain aspects of the system. For those reasons, I will support the Government’s motion, but I will also support the Conservative Party and Labour Party amendments. We should all be proud of Scotland’s railway, but it needs to be fit for the future. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We now move to the open debate. 15:50”
“Abellio posted a £65 million loss in the year just before the Covid pandemic, and we all know that Serco lost nearly £70 million over its seven years of operating the service. Is the publicly owned model any more profitable than when the franchise was in private hands? Is the Caledonian sleeper any more profitable than when the service was in private hands? Fiona Hyslop: Would the member allow me to answer? Jamie Greene: Will I get my time back, Presiding Officer? I am keen to hear an answer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: No. Jamie Greene: Perhaps the cabinet secretary could write to me instead. There is a lot of good will in the chamber, because we all want to see ScotRail succeed.”
“We all know the issues that the last operator had. However, as other members have pointed out, there were 17,000 ScotRail cancellations last year. Passenger journey numbers are still lower than before the Covid pandemic and, indeed, they are lower than pre- nationalisation levels. According to the Office of Rail and Road, Scotland was one of only two train operators across the whole of the UK to operate fewer trains in 2024 than it did in 2023. The cost of this nationalisation must also be talked about. It is not a negative to point out that, according to The Herald, that cost has been £1.47 billion, which represents a rise of 60 per cent from the two years when Abellio operated the franchise. Fiona Hyslop: Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Greene: I do not have much time, unfortunately.”
“We have heard a little bit about the role that the private sector plays in this new, so-called “publicly owned” rail service. However, the reality is that it is the private sector that manufactures the rolling stock; it is the private sector that supplies the financing and leasing funding arrangements to the Government for pretty much all of its rolling stock; it is the private sector that does the maintenance on the rolling stock and the mid-life overhauls. Therefore, if there is a strategy on things such as hydrogen or battery storage, part and parcel of that should be a strategy for the whole transport sector, which could unlock investment in those technologies. I agree that we should be celebrating 20 years of devolution of powers on railways. I have no ideological opposition to the way in which the model currently works.”