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 6 of 10.
“The Scottish Government had a third target, which was the decarbonisation of all passenger trains by 2035. That has been pushed back by a decade as well. We are still waiting for the refreshed rail decarbonisation action plan, which was supposed to be published in the spring of this year. We are now in September, and we have still to see it—yet here we are, having a debate about the future of Scotland’s rail. I mention that because I think that a rail decarbonisation plan cannot sit in a silo; it must be part of a wider transport decarbonisation strategy and a wider energy strategy. Why is that? If there is a central Government strategy, it will do two things. First, it will create economies of scale when it comes to infrastructure investment in new green technology. Secondly, it will unlock private investment.”
“The price of train tickets has gone down, which is welcome, and I believe that there is cross-party support for that. However, the cost of operating those services presumably has not come down. Therefore, I must ask: where else in the transport budget has the money to reduce peak fares come from? It seems counterintuitive that the Scottish Government had a target to reduce car usage by 20 per cent by 2030—a target that it has dropped, I should add—but at the same time made train tickets more expensive. That target was important to the Scottish Government, because it was important to its other goal of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions by three quarters by 2030. That has been dropped, too. I mention those climate targets for one reason.”
“At that time, she told us that, “since the pilot ended, rail use has increased”—[Public Audit Committee, Official Report, 23 April 2025; c 10.], as though that were some sort of rationale for the removal of what had been regarded as a subsidy. That was in April, just five months ago. The Government then said that it would consider removing peak fares “should UK budget allocations improve in future years”. Therefore, I am over the moon that the Scottish Government finds itself in an improved financial position and is able to remove peak fares. However, the problem is that they should never have been taken away in the first place—then brought back, and then taken away again. The economics of the situation point to one reality.”
“I was rather surprised when I saw that the Scottish Government had pencilled in a debate on railways in Government time. It is about time. Over the years, we have had many a debate about Scotland’s railway. It is really good to see the Government actively promoting its own U-turns. When it comes to the removal of peak fares, a little bit of honesty would be much appreciated. The Government ended the pilot scheme by claiming that it was unaffordable. Just over a year ago, the cabinet secretary wrote that “this level of subsidy cannot continue in the current financial climate”. I get that. In fact, I distinctly remember the cabinet secretary appearing before the Public Audit Committee and defending the reinstatement of peak fares.”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises that it is now 20 years since the devolution of executive powers over rail funding, specification and strategy for Scotland’s railway; celebrates the 15th anniversary of the completion of the Airdrie- Bathgate route, instigated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition and completed under the Scottish National Party, the 10th anniversary of the reopening of the Borders Railway and the first anniversary of the reopening of the Levenmouth route; recognises the many significant achievements over those 20 years, including electrification of over 570 kilometres of track, the opening of 30 new stations, and an increase of a fifth in ScotRail passenger numbers; welcomes the consistent delivery of operational performance and passenger satisfaction under public ownership and control, which are among the best levels in Britain; notes the need to continue to improve those performance levels; welcomes the investment of £13 billion over this period to sustain and grow the network through value-for-money projects, including the complete renewal of the Caledonian Sleeper fleet and operation; notes the cross-party support for the removal, for good, of ScotRail peak fares, first piloted while Scottish Green Party ministers were part of the Scottish Government; looks forward to the benefits from developments such as the completion of the electrification of the East Kilbride route, and the progression of procurement of new train fleets and further electrification, including the recently announced Fife and Borders routes; recognises that the UK Government’s current proposals for rail reform draw heavily on the widely recognised success of the devolved approach to rail in Scotland; notes the Scottish Government’s position that full devolution of rail is the optimal position but, in the absence of full devolution, Scotland’s railway must benefit at least as much from those reforms as is promised for England and Wales, and agrees that any reforms that would diminish the Scottish Ministers’ powers and the role of the Scottish Parliament already constrained by current UK legislation would be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament, given the success the delivery model in Scotland has produced over the last two decades.”
“It also makes ticketing simpler and more straightforward, supporting our ambitions to simplify ticketing across our transport network. I have made clear the importance of Scotland’s railway to our economy and society. I have made clear the commitment that the Scottish Government has made over many years to deliver a wide range of achievements that make a real difference to people’s lives. Moving forward, our commitment to rail remains as strong. As we mark 20 years of devolution in Scotland’s railway, I commend the motion to the Parliament.”
“A procurement exercise to replace ScotRail’s intercity high-speed train fleet is already under way. Last month, we formally started market engagement with train manufacturers on the suburban train fleet. Those trains will enable level boarding, they will be more energy efficient, helping to reduce emissions and operating costs, and they will better meet modern passenger expectations. We want more people to choose to travel by public transport for work, study and leisure, and that is why ScotRail peak fares have gone for good, which will help people with on-going household bills and costs. Existing rail passengers will save money, and the measure will encourage potential new passengers on to the train, leaving the car at home. Permanently removing ScotRail peak fares makes public transport a more affordable option for many.”
“Scotland’s railway must capitalise on its existing skills and identify and create opportunities to upskill the current workforce, retraining individuals from other sectors and investing time in the future workforce, thus future proofing Scotland’s railway. The rail cluster builder is a specific example of the Scottish Government’s support of the rail industry. Funded by Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland and Skills Development Scotland, the rail cluster is a three-year project connecting more Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises with rail sector organisations, strengthening and deepening relationships with key stakeholders across the sector and helping to create innovative green solutions that will support our net zero targets. ScotRail has an ageing fleet of trains that must be replaced over the coming decade.”
“This year, we are delivering works to electrify the railway line between Dalmeny and Haymarket, and we are completing the £144 million East Kilbride enhancement project. Just last week, funding was announced to electrify key routes on the Fife and Borders lines, delivering modern, reliable trains. Those infrastructure enhancements are enabling works that will allow a new zero- emission fleet to be introduced. In the autumn, we will publish our refresh of the rail decarbonisation action plan, which will set out a credible plan to deliver decarbonisation in a proportionate way that achieves best value.”
“Although transport is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, Scotland’s railway is a success story: whether diesel or electric traction, it is already a low-carbon form of transport for passengers and freight. Scotland’s railway will make a significant contribution to the Scottish Government’s wider net zero commitments, which we will set out in the draft climate change plan that we put before Parliament. Looking forward, we continue to invest to modernise Scotland’s railway. More than 75 per cent of passenger journeys are already made on electric traction. Building on our record of delivery of electrification, from last year, railway passengers enjoyed new electric services on the Glasgow to Barrhead line, which was completed in December 2023.”
“In particular, does she welcome the reopening by Gibson’s engineering of the Caley railway works in Springburn after a six- year hiatus, in the hope that it will succeed in getting more contracts after the recent award of the Transport for London contract? Fiona Hyslop: I welcome that. Part of rail’s role in the economy is to help the supply chain, and it is important that the jobs and the welcome, continued investment from the Scottish Government help to support that supply chain. Despite our well-known financial challenges, this year the Scottish Government will invest more than £1.5 billion in ScotRail and sleeper services and in operating, maintaining and renewing the rail network.”
“The Government’s role is to put policies in place that facilitate modal shift, and we have shown genuine leadership with a tangible focus in that area through our first-of-a-kind freight growth targets, which incentivise Network Rail to collaborate with the industry to grow rail freight. However, freight works on a commercial basis, so there is a key role for the industry to play. In these times of constrained budgets, I am proud of our investment in projects that support rail freight and pleased to have secured a rail freight grant in this year’s budget. As we work with the rail industry to plan the next suite of investment projects, we will continue to ensure that the benefit for freight is maximised. Paul Sweeney: Does the cabinet secretary also recognise the importance of rail and rolling stock maintenance in Scotland?”
“I have therefore made it clear in meetings with the UK Government that Scottish ministers will not accept any diminution of our existing devolved powers over rail, and that strong governance, accountability and assurance measures must be in place for the areas in which we set strategy and that we fund and specify. That is why a collective stance from the Parliament stating that is important at this time. I move on to the economy. We know that rail benefits business and that growth through rail freight and the transport of goods by rail is a key lever in driving down transport emissions.”
“If the cabinet secretary has time, I will briefly intervene and say that, with devolution comes fiscal responsibility. The cost of upgrading the tracks and of Network Rail’s operations is huge. Where will the Government find the money if it wants to take over that responsibility? Fiona Hyslop: We already fund Network Rail’s responsibilities with £1.5 billion as part of control period 7. That is already part of our budget. The issue with rail reform is that we have to ensure that we have control not only of the funding but of the decision making. My concern about the rail reform that is being discussed at the UK level is that that vertical integration might preclude the governance arrangements that we already have.”
“My only hope is that the Government, WICS and all other public bodies take heed of today’s debate. We say to them: we are watching you. We want our findings and our criticisms to result in tangible and concrete action and change to ensure that such errors never happen again. Employment Rights Bill 17:01”
“The committee’s report is one of the most damning that I have had the pleasure of drafting in my nine years in the Parliament. Our forensic work and that of Audit Scotland shone a light on practice that had hitherto gone unnoticed. It should not have taken a section 22 report to unearth such fiscal mismanagement in a public body. The report does two things. As well as highlighting the importance of good audit, it highlights the importance of the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee. I am proud and pleased to be the committee’s deputy convener, because we take a convivial and constructive attitude to the scrutiny that we do. We park our politics at the door, we roll up our sleeves and we get on with it. The 48-page report before Parliament today is testament to that.”
“The website says, “we really enjoy meeting others who work in the field of regulation!”, as some sort of rationale for how Scottish customers benefit from its international commercial activity. That will come as no comfort to those who are seeing their water bills rise or their rivers polluted. Public bodies that behave like private companies—in terms of their remuneration packages, perks, expenses, culture and management style—will inherently and undoubtedly result in the very failures that we have heard about today, and which our report highlights. I welcome the fact that that activity has been put on pause, but we recommend that a full business case be put together before any decision is taken about whether it should resume.”
“It was also operating as a quasi- commercial organisation, which directly arose off the back of the Scottish Government’s hydro nation strategy. Indeed, the very role of WICS moving forward is a live debate, and one that we should have before the election. The chair of the board of WICS himself said: “It is not unreasonable to ask questions about whether an organisation such as WICS is needed”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 19 February 2025; c 69.] Does Scotland need an organisation to regulate the water industry when Scotland has no commercially competitive residential water industry? That is a valid question. WICS’s own website—if members look at it right now—focuses entirely on its international consultancy remit, and less on the regulatory role that we expect it to play.”
“It says in the Government’s own review that senior officials “were aware of issues relating to behaviour and culture ... there was a lack of evidence to demonstrate action taken as a result.” I hope that something has been learned from that process. Whistleblowers cannot be dealt with in the manner that they were in this case. Evidence was sent to us by former members of staff of WICS, who talked about a “toxic” culture in the organisation. The other issue that has arisen today looks forward at what happens next. That is the inherent conflict of interests that arose at WICS. WICS was acting as an industry regulator—an economic regulator, not an environmental one, I should add—a task which, no doubt, has some merit and is necessary.”
“In our evidence sessions, we witnessed direct contradictions in evidence from witnesses. During one evidence session, in September last year, the former chair of WICS was asked whether the board followed due process. He said that it did. A senior civil servant from the Scottish Government, sitting two feet away from him, said that it did not. So the back and forth went during the committee session—he said, she said. That does not strike me, nor did it strike the committee, as an effective, productive or even healthy relationship between a public body and the Scottish Government. Not only did the Auditor General find that the culture at WICS did not focus on best value for public money; he highlighted issues with behaviour and culture. That should also be of concern to us all.”
“Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Greene: I have not got time. I am sorry. Let me be clear: the PAC expects accountable officers in such organisations to remain in post, in so far as is possible, to be accountable for their actions and the actions of the body that they oversee. This whole ordeal speaks to a wider issue, which is the relationship between senior civil servants and the chief executives and board chairs of public organisations. Our committee report makes that clear, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary acknowledged that, both in the report and in the response to it, saying: “We recognise there were shortcomings in the way the Scottish Government carried out its sponsorship role”. That is a welcome admission. However, it goes further than that.”
“The chief executive’s exit hampered our ability to scrutinise and to hear a full report of what happened—not only about his departure but about the events that led to his departure. That is really what mattered. What was the cause of his departure? What happened in that body that led to the section 22 report? I was extremely concerned, as was the committee, to learn that the chief executive was potentially advised to resign ahead of the Public Audit Committee inquiry. In fact, he said—it is in our report—that the deputy director of water policy at the Scottish Government “reiterated the likelihood of PAC inquiry and that I should perhaps negotiate an earlier exit.” What on earth happened in that conversation? Which senior civil servant should ever offer advice like that to a chief executive of a public board?”
“Our committee was united on the numerous examples of careless financial controls, none of which presented value for public money or the sort of fiscal prudence that we have come to expect from well-paid executives who are in positions of trust. Much of our deliberation focused on the arrangements concerning the departure of the former chief executive. We have heard some of that today. Here is what happened: the day before the Auditor General for Scotland published his first report on WICS, the former chief executive took the decision to resign. The board fast-tracked that resignation in a matter of days. He was then paid for his six-month notice period. There are so many unanswered questions about that entire process.”
“I thank all members for their contributions. I quote three words from the debate for those who are just joining us: “gobsmacking”, “scandalous” and “egregious”. Those are some of the comments that have been made about the outcomes of our committee’s report. I thank Audit Scotland for its detailed and forensic analysis of this public body. Had it not sanctioned a section 22 report, perhaps none of this would have come to light. Let me be clear: the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee was united across political party lines in its criticisms of what occurred at the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. We were united in calling out the failures of the Government, both by the regulator, its board and its leadership and management teams, and by the Scottish Government’s sponsorship team which, I may add, reports directly to ministers.”
“To the credit of the new board and leadership team, significant progress has been made in redeveloping the organisation’s structures and governance and changing its culture. Our role review has resulted in a restructured senior team. A permanent chief executive is now in post, and new directors will join WICS in the autumn. Crucially, financial policies and processes have been fully reviewed and the ambiguous and outdated rules of the past have been removed. I hope that those measures will support an improved culture of compliance.”
“As we discovered further examples of completely inappropriate expenditure, it became clear that a more forensic investigation should be undertaken. One key conclusion of our review is that compliance and cultural issues were long standing and deep rooted. As we said at the time, the tone from the top needed to be reset, and we acted quickly to do that. In July 2024, we appointed two experienced interim board members, neither of whom had any previous connections with WICS. One of those interim members, Ronnie Hinds, became interim chair last October, and the recruitment of a permanent chair is under way. I put on record my personal gratitude to Mr Hinds and his fellow board members for their hard work in steering WICS reforms.”
“In the WICS situation, the Government was found to be lacking when it came to the sponsorship arrangement and the feeding back of information from the individual in the Government who was responsible for that arrangement to Government ministers. The review showed that the process was too reliant on one individual. One of the changes that will be made is that multiple people will be involved in the sponsorship arrangement. That is a fundamental change. Ministers were not aware of the issues until the Auditor General’s first section 22 report and the freedom of information releases in the months that followed. On publication of the first section 22 report, officials—alongside the leadership of WICS—took immediate action to drive improvements and hold WICS to account for the delivery of its action plan.”
“I make this intervention as a member of the Public Audit Committee rather than as its deputy convener. What do the failures of governance at executive or senior management level and at board level say about the sponsorship relationship between the Scottish Government and WICS? What does it say that such irregularities were allowed to happen year after year? Who in the Scottish Government was paying attention to what was happening at WICS? Why was no attention paid to that? Gillian Martin: Jamie Greene makes a fair point, which is one of the reasons why we carried out a review of the sponsorship arrangements between the Scottish Government and public bodies.”
“If the Scottish Government is willing to be bold, Green MSPs will work with it, because a bold, brave Government is exactly what this era of crisis requires. 16:56”
“I wrote to the First Minister with a package of measures that the Government could bring forward with its existing powers to deliver the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign—a campaign that worked against apartheid South Africa and can work against apartheid Israel— because the Scottish Government’s actions with regard to the genocide in Gaza simply do not match its welcome words. In fact, it has taken no action against the state of Israel. One can compare that with its approach to Russia: as soon as Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Scottish Government quite rightly urged every business in the country to axe all ties and business links with Russia. Palestinian Scots want to see action from the Government, because words will not save their family members’ lives.”
“That kind of progress is key to securing independence. We need to strain the existing powers of this place and show people the good of self- government. It undermines the argument for independence when our existing—limited, but existing—-powers sit unused or underused. Yes, we are doing things with one hand tied behind our back, but we need to play the hand that we have been dealt. We need to act to fix the everyday problems that people face, because happy people make for an optimistic society, and that is the only way that we will achieve our goal of independence. I want us to strain the limits of devolution. One area in which I hope that the Scottish Government will stretch the limits of devolution tomorrow is in opposing apartheid Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestine.”
“There are too many young people who want to start a family and need a home to do that but are locked out of the broken housing market, while the king—one of the richest people in this country—is personally exempt from paying land and buildings transaction tax. I know that there are many on the Government benches who agree with the policies that the Greens have put forward and, under the leadership of me and Gillian Mackay, the Greens want to work constructively with the Government where there is common ground and the opportunity to take this country forward together. People want and need politicians on their side, fighting for them. Free bus travel for young people and removing peak rail fares were policies that put money in people’s pockets, took action to tackle the climate crisis and made life easier for normal people.”
“That involves having some difficult conversations, such as the one that I had with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government this morning about the small business bonus scheme. I accept the need for us to support small businesses—the lifeblood of Scotland’s economy—but the Government’s own independent review found that there was no evidence that the £0.25 billion scheme had positive economic outcomes. If we are to spend £0.25 billion supporting small businesses every year, we need to have a difficult conversation about whether the SBBS, in its current form, is the way to do that. That is not the only area of tax where we need to see reform. We also need to see reform in property taxes.”
“I am sure that, on that basis, if the report into the pilots of the four-day working week shows a boost in worker productivity at no additional cost, we will see that in the Conservative manifesto for next year—I do not really believe that, of course, because that would be a policy that would make some people happier, which is something that the Conservatives absolutely cannot see in Scotland. I ask my Conservative colleagues whether they are not exhausted by that negativity. Are they not exhausted by coming here every day to talk down the country that they live in and represent? I spoke in my opening speech about the need for us to redistribute wealth to deliver the fairer, greener society that I believe that the vast majority of people want.”
“However, Labour and Conservative MSPs voted against that amendment to end the scandal of abuse survivors paying their abusers’ debts. Why? In June, Labour and the Conservatives came up with contrived reasons to oppose the Education (Scotland) Bill and to keep the Scottish Qualifications Authority in place—an organisation that they, like me, have quite rightly railed against for years. I tried to find something that I could agree with. At one point, Russell Findlay complained about an unreformed public sector. Although we probably have very different visions of reform, I agree that there is need for reform.”
“A minority Government gives every member of this Parliament the opportunity to exercise influence and to deliver on what they believe in, but there was no mention of a record of delivery and achievement from the members on the Labour or Conservative benches, because they have a strategy of preventing progress—even more so in this session of Parliament than in the previous one. I can think of no better example of that than in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, to which I lodged an amendment to end one particular scandal—the scandal of domestic abuse survivors being forced to pay off their abusers’ council tax debts. I thank Shirley-Anne Somerville and Paul McLennan for supporting me with that amendment and the SNP members who voted for it.”
“However, what we heard from Labour and the Conservatives this afternoon was a relentlessly negative vision for this country—if “vision” is even a word that can be used to describe it. If I was not convinced beforehand, I am absolutely convinced now that it is the strategy of both of those parties to simply make people miserable because they think that that is the best way to achieve the results that they want next May. There is no sense that they would improve the lives of the people of this country. More importantly, there was no record for them to speak of. This is a minority Scottish Government.”
“Of course they are sick of people bemoaning failures, but something that is sorely lacking in this place is the Government taking and accepting responsibility when it has to. This debate is about Scotland’s future. We all want a better future for Scotland—I do not doubt that. However, speeches will not deliver a better Scotland; a Government that does what it promises will, and whatever the next Government of Scotland looks like, it should never forget that. 16:50 Ross Greer: I will pick up from where Ben Macpherson finished because I was disappointed by this debate. It was an opportunity for all parties to set out our priorities and our visions for Scotland. In too many cases, the Scottish Government lacks ambition and bravery, but there is clearly a vision there and it is one that I can broadly agree with.”
“There are other reasons, and it is about time that we stop scapegoating people who have already faced so much adversity in life to get to where they are. I make no apologies for saying that. I understand that governing is difficult, and that it is about priorities. I understand that there has never been an endless pot of cash, and I understand the economic difficulties of being in government and having to make those decisions. However, taxpayers want and deserve value for money. They expect good public services. They expect their Parliament to debate these issues with gravity and sensitivity. They expect their politicians to work constructively when required and to disagree respectfully when necessary. Of course they want alternatives.”
“My biggest fear is that voters will respond to their overall loss of faith in politics and politicians by finding solace in the fringes of populist politics: in politicians who will promise them the earth, but who will deliver nothing but grievance, division and community discontent. Divide and conquer, as their strategy seems to be, will deliver temporary electoral results, but it also risks fracturing the good nature of Scots—and we, as a Parliament, cannot let that happen. Fergus Ewing: Will Jamie Greene give way? Jamie Greene: I do not have much time; my apologies. Let me say that refugees are not the reason that people cannot get a GP appointment by waiting in that 8 am queue. Let me say that the LGBT community is not the reason that domestic violence is on the up in Scotland.”
“That is our national shame, which is a shame not just on the Government but on the entire Parliament. People in my region lie awake at night staring at their spreadsheets, wondering why footfall to their island is down this year, whether their business will survive another winter and which member of staff they might have to lay off to balance the books. Ben Macpherson said that he wants solutions, and I agree. I, too, want to hear constructive solutions from all parties, which all have good ideas. However, people are fed up, and I do not blame them. Here is my biggest fear, and why I find genuine consensus in some of the comments that have been made this afternoon.”
“Yes, all that might sound a bit parochial and overly negative, but all politics is local, and that is the reality of too many people and too many of our constituents. Believe it or not, very few people in my region lie awake at night wondering about the many constitutional arguments that occupy so much airtime in this chamber. They lie awake at night because they are in pain. They lie awake at night because they are waiting on a new knee or hip. They lie awake at night because they are stuck in temporary accommodation, wondering why on earth they cannot find a permanent home for them and their children. They lie awake at night in the back streets of our Glasgow city, addicted to drugs and desperate for help, and many of them will not wake the next day.”
“Of course, none of that comes as any surprise, because we all know that care homes are closing across Scotland, left, right and centre. In Scotland right now, 10,000 people are waiting for a social care assessment. We did not hear from members on the Government benches about the nearly 1 million people who are stuck on an out-patient, in-patient or diagnostic appointment waiting list, some of whom have been on one for years—years of worry, pain and distress. Some people will die waiting. We did not hear about the psychiatric patients who were discharged from hospital, often at the most vulnerable point in their lives, who waited a year for critical follow-up care. One person in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area waited 330 days to be seen after leaving hospital.”
“Although we heard it from Opposition members, we did not hear it from them that, for the seventh year in a row, Scotland has the highest number of drug deaths in Europe. We did not hear that 25 of them were in Inverclyde alone. Those people are my neighbours; those people are my friends of friends. We also did not hear from members on the Government benches about the 8,000 cancellations on the Gourock to Dunoon ferry in the past two years, or about the fact that Ferguson Marine was overlooked for ferry contracts, which went to yards in Poland and Turkey, and which we are now seeing delays to. We did not hear about the 2,000 people—that is more than the entire population of Howwood in my region—who are stuck in a hospital bed due to delayed discharge. They are in hospital, but they should be at home, and we all know it.”
“I welcome Ruth Maguire’s presence back in the chamber after her absence. It is good to see her. [Applause.] I also take the opportunity to thank the constituent who wrote to me congratulating me on taking over the Scottish Green Party. I am very grateful for their email, but I think that I have done enough bench moving this year. Listening to the First Minister today, I was really struck by a sense of déjà vu, because I have listened to this debate some nine years in a row. However, the big difference in the First Minister’s speech this year was that it took him 14 minutes to utter the word “independence”—and, even then, it was just once. That, in itself, is quite telling as to the direction of travel of the SNP. Here is what we did not hear, but should have heard, from the speakers from the governing party.”
“However, I am also very conscious that there will be a period of investment that will mean that Ardrossan harbour will be closed, so I think that we should be turning our attention to how we can provide practical support to businesses during that stage.”
“I do not want to see a single small business in Ardrossan lose business or go bust as a result of this sorry saga. Fiona Hyslop: I note that the Liberal Democrat member has taken the side of Peel Ports and accepted its interpretation. As the cabinet secretary, I am trying to ensure that there are constructive discussions between the parties and that both parties are giving the issue the attention that is required. The member refers to a separate scheme that has been announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to help support islanders. I understand that there has been an extension to the application period. My main concern for Ardrossan harbour is to keep it open and operating as long as possible. That is why we are providing additional funding to ensure that, where possible, there is two-port provision.”
“Let us not forget that it was Humza Yousaf who promised the upgrade of Ardrossan harbour when he was transport minister. This Government has had years to get on with the job. Peel Ports has accused the Government of not matching its “pace, energy and commitment” when it comes to the negotiations, and it says that the negotiations must be a higher priority. I hope that that will be the case moving forward. On compensation specifically, will the cabinet secretary consider extending the window of opportunity for compensation beyond today, which is currently the last day for applications? There are businesses out there that still need cash and are not aware of the scheme. Secondly, will the scheme be extended to businesses in Ardrossan?”
“Our employability schemes and our investment in employability are important ways to do that. There is also our focus on growing the economy through investment in the Scottish National Investment Bank, investment through Scottish Enterprise and delivery through our enterprise agencies. We also have incredible levels of direct investment into Scotland. There are some underlying strengths in the Scottish economy. Yes, there is more to do. We look forward to working with Jamie Greene and his colleagues on some of the additional measures that we can take, particularly around employability and what works to get people back into the labour market.”
“According to today’s forecast, the bills for health and social care and devolved social security benefits account for more than half of all Government spend, with both bills rising every year for the next five years to the tune of £150 billion. The Scottish Government claims that economic growth is its top priority, but with one in five Scots economically inactive, surely the public sector reform that we need is the sort that will help to get people back into work, reduce the welfare bill and make our nation wealthier, healthier and happier. Does the cabinet secretary not accept that today’s forecasts instead demonstrate an unsustainable budget that achieves none of that? Shona Robison: Let me start on a point of agreement, which is that it is important to get people back to work.”