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 7 of 10.
“Mr Greene is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there remains a significant prevalence of prejudice in our society. That prejudice will take different forms, but it must all be confronted, because prejudice is unhealthy in our society. I give him my commitment that the Government will confront it on my behalf.”
“The First Minister: On the question of a parliamentary debate, Mr Greene will appreciate that commitments of that type are even above the pay grade of the First Minister, but I will ensure that the Minister for Parliamentary Business is well aware of that request, which the Parliamentary Bureau can discuss. Mr Greene’s point is really important. We have to take a human rights-based approach to all these questions. That is the foundation for the respectful treatment of individuals in our society, and it lies at the heart of the Government statement that I have made in the Parliament today. The Parliament has endorsed a human rights-based approach to many aspects of our policies, and that should be reflected in the outlook and perspective of members of Parliament in how we respond to this challenge.”
“Although the apology is overdue, it is very welcome, and the Liberal Democrats unreservedly add our voice to it. However, let us not pretend that the rhetoric and narrative about the Gypsy Traveller community from some quarters, particularly from politicians, has always been just or justified, so I hope that the apology is universal across the chamber. Many of the problems of yesterday are still the problems of today—be it higher suicide rates among the community, lack of educational attainment or lack of access to basic fundamental public services and human rights, such as those relating to health and housing—so there is clearly more to be done. Given the scale of those challenges, will the First Minister commit to a full parliamentary debate in Government time after the summer recess so that we can discuss them?”
“It is therefore very far from being the differential that he identifies. We are proud of the support that we provide to carers in Scotland. However, we are of course always keen to have conversations to see what else we can do to support them in the very important role that they perform.”
“Is the Scottish Government willing to look at the thresholds, and at whether any of that underspend could be used in this financial year or ring fenced to support carers in the vital role that they perform, instead of that money disappearing into what is clearly next year’s fiscal black hole, which is sitting in the Scottish Government’s accounts? Ivan McKee: First, on the technical point, Jamie Greene is right to identify that carers allowance was underspent by around £100 million. However, if he looks further down the figures, he will recognise that carer support payments were overspent by almost £100 million. The reason for that is that the first of those is a Department for Work and Pensions payment, which was then transferred to Social Security Scotland, which then picked up the payment and incurred that cost as a consequence.”
“At some point, we are going to have to have an honest debate in this Parliament about the net income forecast for Scottish income tax, which has reduced by £850 million on outturn versus forecast. However, there is another line that I was very concerned to read about in this outturn, in relation to carers allowance reduction. There is more than £100 million of underspend in that line, yet so many carers in Scotland are facing the harsh reality of difficult finances due to the cliff edge of earnings in relation to receiving that benefit.”
“However, given the very legitimate concerns about what has been going on in the middle east, it is unsurprising to me that colleagues want to understand how we are operating things and that we are doing so as best as we possibly can; I, too, am keen to understand as much as I can. Jamie Greene is absolutely right that Prestwick is an excellent airport that serves both civil and military flights.”
“Angus Robertson: The first thing to acknowledge is that Prestwick is an excellent airport, which is why it is used for both civil and military purposes. It is fair to say that the militaries of different countries often use bases; if they are dealing with military materiel, they tend to fly from one military base to another. In the UK, there are two bases that are operated by the Royal Air Force that have a significant US Air Force presence. That being said, as I have already said, Prestwick is used by the air forces of allied countries, which is entirely appropriate.”
“In 2023, it was reported that the airport had received a boost of more than £20 million through its military flight usage. Although it is hard to ascertain the true number, it has also been reported that, since 2017, the Pentagon has paid more than £70 million through some means or other for the use of Prestwick airport. It has also been used as a hub for North Atlantic Treaty Organization flights in order to send supplies to Ukraine, for example. Given that the Scottish Government owns the airport, what impact would the removal of any military usage and loss of associated income have on the airport’s ability to compete as a going concern—or, indeed, to be sold as a going concern, which I presume is still the Scottish Government’s position?”
“I am just as uncomfortable with leaving a major multimillion-pound investment decision to sit on the desks of ministers when they already have a lengthy backlog of decisions to make, including, for example, on the Loch Long salmon farm. Those are decisions that ministers deem are far too controversial to go ahead with. My one ask of ministers today, which is perhaps naive in an election year, is simply this: please do not let politics get in the way of sensible evidence- based decision making in making this decision. The Scottish Government will have to carry the can, and it will have to own any decision that it makes. I wish the Government good luck—it is going to need it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:25”
“For future investment to happen, two things must happen in parallel. First, local communities must be confident that planning, consultation and appeals processes are truly fit for purpose—and we all know that many do not believe that to be the case. Secondly, future investors must know that Scotland is open for business and that applications will be treated fairly and squarely, free from rhetoric and falsehoods. This long, drawn-out saga has damaged confidence in investing in our tourism sector just as much as it has damaged confidence in our current planning processes. I am uncomfortable with leaving a decision such as this to the Government, which is bereft of consistency when it comes to overturning local decisions.”
“I have a bit of a problem with today’s debate, because the Government’s 11th-hour announcement that it will call in the application is quite an embarrassing one. The Government was staring down the barrel of a defeat at decision time today and the minister has caved accordingly. Initial proposals for the development were brought back on 1 January 2018. Since then, they have been withdrawn, rejected, appealed, approved and again face potential defeat. The problem with that uncertainty is that it is not fair on either local residents or the developer, which I am surprised did not walk away from the project ages ago. I will explain what I am nervous about. If every proposed major development in Scotland results in a seven-year-long battle, which has to end in a debate in its national Parliament, good luck in attracting any future investment.”
“They had valid concerns about road capacity on the A82 and environmental concerns about the effect on wildlife and ancient woodland. They also had many suspicions about the true economic or employment value of the whole project. The minister is right to say that this is a matter of national significance, particularly given the polarisation of views, although the nature and location of the development are important, too. I believe that, in this instance, calling in the application is probably the right thing to do. My natural instinct is to keep ministers as far away from planning decisions as we can, but, nonetheless, escalating such decisions is an appropriate part of the planning process.”
“There seems to be a very live competition about who is taking credit for bringing the topic to the chamber the most times. However, on the substance of the debate, there are people who are in favour of the development, and I think that it is fair to comment on that. Perhaps those are the 35 per cent of people who responded to Jackie Baillie’s survey who believe that the development will deliver jobs and investment. There are claims—and they are claims—that the development will lead to up to £40 million of investment across the west of Scotland, provide up to 200 new jobs and bring around £3.4 million to the local economy. Job creation or economic growth in the west of Scotland is not to be sniffed at, and the reporter seemed to agree. However, we cannot ignore the great number of those who were opposed to the development.”
“The proposed development at Loch Lomond has definitely filled my inbox more than any other planning issue over the years. My office has dubbed it the “Loch Lomond monster” in the past couple of weeks, such is the great strength of feeling around it. This long-standing saga is symptomatic of a much wider issue: how planning decisions are made in Scotland; how they are consulted on; how objections are dealt with; how long decisions take; and whether we need a wider root-and-branch review of the entire planning regime—which, incidentally, we do. I do not want to linger on the very well- rehearsed arguments for and against the development. A lot has already been said about that and, dare I say it, there has been a fair amount of political opportunism.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Humza Yousaf joins us remotely. Public Procurement (Alignment with International Law Obligations) 7.”
“I have a straightforward question: are there any circumstances whatsoever under which the Scottish Government would refuse more money, if asked for it, to complete the Glen Rosa, or is it the case that we have simply passed the point of no return and that the vessel will be finished, whatever the cost? Shona Robison: As I said in response to Sue Webber, the Deputy First Minister could not have been clearer that the situation is unacceptable and that strong leadership and urgent delivery are now non-negotiable. It is very important for our island communities that the vessel is delivered, but Ferguson and its leadership have to deliver the ferry within the timescale and the budget allocation that have now been agreed. The Deputy First Minister has been very clear about that point.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure the connectivity of local communities in the west of Scotland, in light of reports that over 400 Stagecoach drivers in Ayr, Arran, Ardrossan and Kilmarnock have begun industrial action until 21 July. (S6T-02586)”
“What needs to change? We need to reinstate those shared care protocols; we need to look at the stepped care and four-tier pathways that others have suggested; we need an employment strategy that includes neurodivergent people; and we need to close the mental health funding gap. Why? Because neurodivergent people in Scotland are not asking for special treatment—they are asking for fairness, timely diagnosis, care and a chance to thrive. We cannot afford to leave neurodivergent people behind in our economy, physically or mentally. I hope that today’s debate is a turning point for ministers, so that neurodevelopmental services are no longer optional extras but essential to a healthier, more inclusive and more ambitious Scotland. Business Motions 17:10”
“As Willie Rennie eloquently pointed out, we face not only a health emergency but an economic emergency due to the inactivity in our working-age population. If one in 10 people is deemed to be neurodivergent, why on earth would we not want to get many of those people back into the workplace? What do we need to do to support employers and businesses that want to help those people into the workplace? Here are some startling statistics. Twenty-nine per cent of autistic people in Scotland are in employment. For those with learning disabilities, the figure drops to 4 per cent of autistic people. By comparison, 82 per cent of non-disabled people are in employment. To be clear, neurodivergence is an asset in the workplace, because neurodivergent people can be more diverse and productive. It is about time that the Government and business saw that.”
“What about the shared care arrangements that we have heard so much about today? Where have families been left with those? They have been left with a system that they can access only if they have the ability to pay for it. We have a two-tier diagnosis system for neurodivergence in this country, just as we probably have for dental care, audiology and many other front-line NHS services. Is that where we are? Is that what the SNP went to Scotland with in 2021? I think not. The problem is that those are not just broken promises, political ones or otherwise; they are impacting people’s lives. Paul Sweeney talked about GIRFEC. If we want to get it right for every child, we have to bring down those waiting times. We are getting it very wrong for very many children—that is where GIRFEC is at the moment.”
“Jamie Greene: The answer speaks for itself: the Government is “committed” to it. We are nine or 10 months out from an election, but that commitment was made nearly five years ago. Tens of thousands of people are sitting on a waiting list because it has not happened. The Government can wish it to happen, but making it happen is another thing. The other commitment that was made was for 1 per cent of the NHS budget to be spent on CAMHS, which has clearly not happened. We could pop up and down all day to confirm where we are with each of the commitments, but the reality is that none of them is being met. Here is another one: the promise to develop a national neurodevelopmental pathway. A feasibility study was done four years ago, but the pathway has still not happened.”
“That happened six years ago—the Government has known that demand will increase, but capacity has not kept up. The SNP made some very explicit and specific promises. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is shaking his head, but here are some specifics of what his Government promised to voters when it got into power in 2021. It said: “10% of our ... NHS budget will be allocated to mental health.” Is that happening? Nobody else seems to believe that it is. Neil Gray: Will the member give way? Jamie Greene: I am happy to give way if the cabinet secretary can enlighten us on that point. Neil Gray: I am happy to confirm that our commitment remains to bring forward the 10 per cent and 1 per cent pledges in the lifetime of the Parliament, as we committed in our manifesto.”
“Who picks up the pieces? GPs do. They are managing complex cases without the time or support that they need to come up with solutions. Teachers are picking up the pieces in our classrooms without adequate time, training or support. Families are picking up the pieces because they are navigating a fragmented, broken system that too often confuses, delays or even denies them help. The backlog is not temporary. Elena Whitham: Will the member give way? Jamie Greene: I will make some progress first, and then I will. The backlog did not happen overnight; it is a long-term failure to plan to meet demand, which has been growing for almost a decade. In the years from 2019 to 2021, demand for ADHD assessments increased by 500 to 600 per cent.”
“The reality is that what neurodivergent people in Scotland are facing is not just a challenge; it is unjust, and—as one member put it—it is scandalous. I hope that, as a starting point, we can all agree on that. Right now, thousands of children across Scotland are simply waiting for an initial autism or ADHD assessment. Let us look at some of the numbers. In NHS Lothian, the waiting list currently sits at more than 6,000 young people; in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, it is more than 7,500 young people; and, in NHS Lanarkshire, the number is more than 8,500 people. In those three areas alone, 22,000 young people are sitting on a waiting list right now—a waiting list not of weeks or months, but of years. They are waiting for two years, three years and, in some cases, seven years. How is that acceptable in modern-day Scotland?”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer, and welcome back to your place. I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. I hope that it has been quite a sobering experience for those on the SNP front benches, because a number of truths have come across, on which I think that all the Opposition parties, at the very least, and some members of the governing party agree. There is some agreement on the following. There are extremely—and overly—long waits for diagnosis, and there are gaps in adult services. There is a retreat from shared care agreements— those agreements, from which people previously benefited, no longer exist. That has left families stranded and, in some cases, out of pocket, and that is not acceptable. The human cost of the incredibly long diagnosis waits and backlogs is also unacceptable.”
“There is a massive skills gap in Scotland, costing us hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Here is the answer. We need smaller class sizes, we need more teachers in secondary and we need proper workforce planning in primary education, where supply equals demand and vice versa. The context of the debate is simple. No teachers means no skills, and no skills means no economic growth. That all starts with the Government accepting some responsibility. 15:19”
“Every child in Scotland should have access to subjects such as maths, sciences, computing and modern languages. We have heard of other teachers who have come to Scotland to make it their home but cannot teach due to issues with General Teaching Council qualifications. We have been talking about that for a decade in the Parliament, but we have never been able to resolve the issue. That is not just bad for schools and for teachers; it is bad for the economy. We need those skills to be taught at the earliest possible age, so that the industries of the future—renewables, fintech, artificial intelligence and life sciences—all start in the classroom. If we have no computing science teachers today, we will have no coders tomorrow. If we have no physics teachers today, we will have no engineers tomorrow.”
“The cabinet secretary says that she has sympathy for those primary school teachers. I have sympathy for them, too. However, they do not want sympathy; they just want a permanent job. It is as simple as that. What effect does all that have on pupils, more importantly? Multilevel teaching has increased dramatically. According to one study in Dundee, 40 per cent of classes had multilevel teaching at one point. That is an absolute disgrace. According to the University of Stirling, there has been a clear “reduction in the number of subjects” offered under the present Government. Enlighten has told us that “one in eight of all secondary pupils ... attend a secondary school with no qualified computing science teacher. This rises to around 50% in rural areas”.”
“Since 2008, the number of maths teachers has gone down by 12 per cent in Scotland, the number of physics teachers is down by 8 per cent and the number of computing science teachers is down by—wait for it—25 per cent. Every year, STEM recruitment targets are missed, while hundreds and hundreds of fully trained, good primary school teachers are unemployed. Let us take Glasgow as an example. In 2017, 73 per cent of primary school teachers went straight from probation into a permanent job. By 2023, guess what the number was? It was 10 per cent: just 10 per cent went into a permanent job. Jenny Gilruth says that our teachers in Scotland are the best paid in the United Kingdom. That is all very well and good, but you need a job to be well paid. That is the problem that we are trying to raise this afternoon.”
“It is hard to believe, after 17 years of the present Government, that we are having this debate. We really should not be, but here we are. Let us not beat about the bush, cabinet secretary: there is a crisis in teaching in Scotland. On one hand, we are short of teachers in key subject areas, such as STEM and modern languages; on the other hand, we have an oversupply of teachers in primary schools. How can we reconcile that? I have not heard a single word of admission of the problem from members on the front benches. That is not a staffing issue, and it is not a council issue; it is a planning failure, it is a whole-system failure and it is absolutely a Government failure. Let us look at the facts. In 2024, there were 631 fewer teachers than just one year prior to that.”
“However, I can certainly tell you that it has previously been used by a member of the public to make a complaint about somebody accessing facilities in the public area, which was dealt with appropriately by the officials and the corporate body. Certainly, if there was any sense of its being used for abuse, the corporate body would be mindful. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please.”
“Contrary to the view that this subject is simply a load of nonsense, many members are far more concerned about the wellbeing of those who choose to make the Parliament their workplace. We owe them dignity and respect. Given the answer to a previous question, I ask the corporate body simply to ensure that the aforementioned complaints procedure must not and will not be used as a means of prejudicing anyone in the Parliament, nor to force the disclosure of any details of their private life, including their status relative to their gender. Christine Grahame: I would have to write about how the complaints procedure works on the face of it; I have not accessed it.”
“Kate Forbes: Jamie Greene is right to identify the double hit of the immigration white paper and the hike to national insurance contributions, both of which could have devastating impacts on the care sector. That is not just my view—it is also the view of Donald Macaskill and others who work in the sector. The data is stark, and the evidence is clear. We have enough qualitative anecdotal evidence to illustrate what the impact could be. Jamie Greene is also right in his comment about the use of “low-skilled workers”, because we know how critical it is that we have a workforce in the care sector. Few things are as important to us, as a society, as the care of vulnerable people. Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry 2.”
“Glenfield care home in Greenock is earmarked for closure, citing recruitment issues and the national insurance hike as primary reasons. Another care home manager, at Campbell Snowden House, warned that other care homes in my region will follow. He also admonished politicians for using language such as “low-skilled workers” when it comes to the care sector, saying that they are highly-skilled jobs and that it is a very respectable career. What is the Scottish Government’s plan B if the white paper comes to pass? How do we ensure that vital lifeline sectors, such as the care sector, will have the staff that they need in order to survive?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with charitable and third sector organisations regarding the decision not to introduce legislation to end conversion therapy practices, and other equalities-related legislation, during the current parliamentary session. (S6O-04661)”
“I, too, have concerns that I want to see addressed at stages 2 and 3, but we must have a proper debate. Adding my voice—adding your voice—to allow the bill to pass at stage 1 will do that. 17:08”
“However, surely it is a paradox that a result of that perceived value is to insist that humans suffer more. Many of the people who are speaking against assisted dying today are people of faith. Historically, many religions see suffering, death and dying as ways to seek or confirm spirituality. Jesus was required to choose suffering. However, what of the vast majority of society who reject religion? We are now a majority secular society. Our outlook is ever changing. The Hippocratic oath set out the long-standing approach of the medical profession, but that, too, has evolved. The original Hippocratic oath noted that doctors should not cause abortion, but people mostly now accept the right of others to choose that path and the right of medical practitioners to carry it out. On balance and all things considered, I will vote yes at stage 1.”
“It is about allowing people choices over the manner of their death, thereby giving them agency and choice. We have heard much talk of a slippery slope, which almost suggests an impending moral breakdown or a threat to civilised society, but surely a bad death—by which I mean a type of death that is prescribed by others and done to you—is not civilised. Surely the real slippery slope is when inadequate policy responses allow for assisted dying to happen behind the scenes. I do not consider ever-increasing sedation, which occurs frequently, as affording dignity, because all choice and agency are removed. Is the choice, then, about being inhumane or humane? We can consider that from the perspective of human exceptionalism: the belief, held by many, that humans as animals on this earth have a higher value than other animals.”
“We have also heard some deeply personal stories of suffering, all of which I am sympathetic to, having seen my mother die of breast cancer. However, we are, first and foremost, legislators. This place must be relevant, and many Scots are calling for the bill to be given a fair hearing. In preparation for this debate, I revisited some of the debate at Westminster that took place when I was a member there, in particular the compelling and passionate speech of Dr Philippa Whitford, a valued colleague and a breast surgeon for many years, who spoke movingly of her experience over decades of palliative care. However, we know that palliative care cannot address all suffering, so this is indeed about choices—not about the choice to die, for that is removed, but a choice about how to die.”
“I am not sure that there are many members left in the chamber who are yet to decide on their vote, but I am certainly one of them. One thing that has struck me over the course of the debate is the idea of choice. The reality at the moment is that the choice of medically assisted death exists, but only for those who can afford it. That is something that we will have to reconcile today. Michelle Thomson: I completely agree, and I am trying to set out some of those considerations. We have already heard much about safeguarding, be it in the context of coercion, disabled people or the aged. That consideration is necessary; we have not always focused on safeguarding in the way that we should have done for other bills.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what further consideration it has given to increasing or removing the earnings limit for recipients of the carer support payment. (S6O-04637)”
“I move amendment S6M-17437.1, to insert at end: “; notes that, whilst the Programme for Government 2025-26 contains plans and policies to eradicate child poverty, the Scottish Government has already missed the interim child poverty targets of less than 18% of children living in relative poverty and less than 14% living in absolute poverty by 2023-24; believes that action is also required on Scotland’s housing and planning systems in order to not only help the economy grow and encourage investment, but also to ensure that everyone has a safe, warm place to call home, particularly given that an estimated 10,360 children and their families are living in temporary accommodation in Scotland; understands that, whilst there are wider economic challenges both domestically and internationally, there remains concern that the work and reform that may be required to eradicate intergenerational poverty is not taking place at the necessary pace, as noted by The Wise Group, and is further concerned that, despite the actions announced in the Programme for Government 2025-26, these will not be enough to drive the economic growth required and the 2030 child poverty targets, of less than 10% of children living in relative poverty, will be missed.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate.”
“That includes investing in new and emerging industries and markets, developing our workforce—I cannot stress that enough—as well as investing in digital, transport and infrastructure and, of course, building more houses, which is another point in my amendment. We absolutely need more affordable, safe, clean and warm houses in Scotland. It is an absolute shame to the Government that 10,000 people live in temporary accommodation in modern-day Scotland. That has to be a focus, but it is not in the motion either. It is for that reason that we will not support the Government’s motion. I urge members to support my amendment.”
“However, those people still deserve life chances. On the other side of the coin, how can someone become a barber, a plumber, an electrician or a welder if the training is not there or if there are no large employers in their region to attract apprentices? In the economy debate that we had last week, I pointed out that more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in Inverclyde. How will that help to eradicate child poverty? In my closing speech, I will talk a little more about some of the public sector reform that was mentioned by Paul O’Kane and is documented by the Wise Group. There are some really interesting points in that, which we should be talking about. However, I do not think that we can fully eradicate child poverty in Scotland until we talk about the economic growth that is required to fund the tackling of it.”
“It is also my view that the programme for government should have defined how the Government will advance—not just grow—the Scottish economy, how we will tackle the skill shortages that we all know exist in many sectors and how the Government will invest in the industries of the future. It is all very well name dropping life sciences, precision manufacturing, aerospace and renewables, but that is not the same as doing something about growing them and attracting investment into the country. We know that those industries are our unique selling points. They have business leaders who say to us that they want the Government to help, not hinder, their growth. Not everyone will want to go into those industries of the future—I understand that. Many young people—in particular, those from deprived communities—may not see a route or a path to them.”
“I have long held the belief—mostly born out of life experience, rather than political ideology—that economic growth and opportunity are the key routes out of poverty. We need to grow our economy by far more than just 1 per cent per year. Whether that is a couple of percentage points either side of the UK average is irrelevant, because the economy needs to be growing by double-digit figures if we are to have the sort of growth in the tax base that we need to improve public services. We need three things to happen—we need more businesses, more jobs and better wage growth. All three must happen; success in just one will not suffice. It is no coincidence that the three Opposition amendments stress the importance of economic growth as part of the national mission.”
“Does he agree that, since the capital budget is now £7 billion annually over the next 10 years, and since the combined plans for the A9, the A96 and the Nairn bypass would involve just over half of that, there is more than enough money in the capital budget to fund the dualling of the A9 and the Nairn bypass? Jamie Greene: I could not agree more. That should have been done years ago. The member knows my position on that and I am sure that he agrees with it. He is in the same political party as members on the Government front bench, so perhaps he could put as much pressure as he can on the Government to fulfil that obligation, because infrastructure is absolutely key. Digital, road and transport infrastructure is all necessary for economic growth. Solving a systemic problem such as child poverty is an admirable ambition.”
“That does not surprise me, but it all matters because, as I will touch on, our constituents are most likely to interact with the Scottish Government’s policies in their public service interactions. Those are the touch points that can help them to improve their lives and to live healthier, happier, safer and more prosperous lives. On the Scottish Government’s defining mission of eradicating poverty and, particularly, child poverty, which the First Minister said is his personal career-defining mission, I am not exactly filled with confidence. Fergus Ewing: The member mentioned the A9.”
“In the Government’s 168-word motion, there is no mention of the crisis in Scotland’s national health service, NHS waiting times, missed targets in accident and emergency departments and the postcode lottery for access to dental care. Nothing in the motion talks about the growing attainment gap, which has gone from 3.7 per cent to 4.3 per cent in just a year. Nothing talks about falling police numbers, when we have lost more than 1,000 police officers since Police Scotland was created; and there is nothing about infrastructure, such as the Government’s failure to dual the A9. Nothing in the motion talks about how the Government will tackle our drug and alcohol deaths crisis, although alcohol deaths are at a 15- year high and Scotland’s drug deaths rate is still the highest in Europe. There is nothing in the motion about any of that.”