Ross Greer
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“In the short term, will the Government introduce measures such as the Scottish Greens’ proposed Amazon tax—a higher rate of NDR for large online retailers—to help even the playing field for small businesses and local high streets?”
“I welcome the fact that vape shops will now be paying full rates. However, that shows how poorly designed the small business bonus scheme was in the first place. The Government spends more than £200 million a year on untargeted reliefs, despite its own review finding no economic benefit to the scheme.”
“Scotland faces a wave of applications for hyperscale data centres. If all the applications that are currently in the pipeline were approved, they would consume up to 6,000MW of power, which is more than one and a half times our entire national power use at peak time and is obviously completely impossible.”
“The Government’s policy is to support what it refers to as “green” data centres, but that position was decided before ChatGPT existed, before Elon Musk launched Grok and before any of those hyperscale proposals came forward. So, what is the Scottish Government’s definition of a “green” data centre?”
“I am glad that the Labour Party has secured a debate on restoring public trust in Scottish politics, because, quite clearly, the public have very little trust in our political institutions. However, that did not begin and does not end with Peter Murrell’s crimes against the SNP.”
“If we want to talk about the damage that has been done to our politics in a UK context, we could mention Labour Together, an institution with strong links to the Prime Minister that was caught spying on journalists and did not declare substantial amounts of money that it had received in donations.”
The complete record
Every one of 553 lines we hold for Ross Greer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“Surely we can all agree on the necessity of holding a revaluation exercise towards the end of this parliamentary session or the beginning of the next one. We need to tackle the big challenges that this country faces: the climate emergency, child poverty, our ageing population, and the social care and health demands that come with those. Tackling each of those issues costs a substantial amount of money, but doing nothing will cost far more. We need to be honest about where that money comes from. I am proud that, over and over again, in this country, we have taken the decision to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest responsibility for funding public services that deliver and meet the needs of the people of Scotland. 14:49”
“In Wales, council tax of up to 300 per cent is charged on second or holiday homes, and there was overwhelming public support for that. I intend to lodge amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to give councils the power to set whichever council tax rate they wish for such homes. Such decisions on local tax should be for them to make—not us. Other new tools secured by Scottish Greens have been, or will be, introduced, such as the visitor levy and the cruise ship levy, which will empower local government further. However, collectively, we need to grasp the thistle. It is incredibly frustrating to have the same debates about council tax reform over and over again without substantial changes being made. We even retreat from the point of revaluation. No significant reform can take place without having accurate data.”
“As I pointed out at Tuesday’s committee meeting, given how grossly unequal the council tax system currently is, any winners from such a change are likely be people on lower incomes or in smaller-value properties, depending on how the change is made. The losers would be people who currently reside in much higher-value properties, which are generally much larger—the wealthier people in our society, who have much more political and social capital with which to cause grief for Governments and political parties that decide to make that change. However, I am proud of the small tweaks that we have made to the system. For example, Scottish Greens secured a doubling of council tax on second or holiday homes. The Scottish Government consulted on going further than that doubling approach.”
“The main property tax that we have available in Scotland is the council tax. We all agree that is a totally broken system. It has not been in date since a time some years before I was born. The last time that council tax was based on accurate valuations was almost a decade before the Scottish Parliament was reconvened. In her evidence at this week’s meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the cabinet secretary was very honest about the challenges in achieving council tax reform—which, preferably, would mean its replacement—or even just revaluation. Any major change to our tax system would produce winners and losers—that is the nature of politics.”
“It is true that a bit more could be done to change our income tax system to make it a bit more progressive, although not a great deal more, and certainly not in terms of revenue yield. However, income is far from the whole picture here. Of course, the wealthiest people in this country manage their finances in such a way that regular income plays only a very small part in them. Income taxes do not tackle generational wealth inequality. Property is the obvious area in which to address such inequality through the devolved powers that are available to us. I am glad that we have, once again, increased the additional dwelling supplement that is paid by people who are in the fortunate position of purchasing a home that is not their primary property—generally, second or holiday homes or buy-to-let properties.”
“Scotland has the most progressive income tax system anywhere in the UK. I am proud of that fact, as I think all of us should be. Most people here pay a little bit less, but those on higher incomes pay more, which, in this year alone, will raise £1.7 billion for our public services. That will fund everything from free bus travel for young people to the Scottish child payment and the baby box—policies that are unique to Scotland and are making a transformational impact on the lives of people across the country, especially our most vulnerable families. I am proud that Scottish Greens have delivered the major changes to income tax since the point at which it was devolved.”
“Our recommendations would also have made Scotland a more competitive place on tax at the mid levels than the rest of the UK. However, it is clear that ministers are on a different path: one of high tax and low growth. The SNP’s tax plans that we are debating not only contradict the very principles that the SNP set out in 2021 but mean that more people will be paying more tax in Scotland. That will undoubtedly hamper growth and undermine competitiveness. It is for those reasons that the Conservatives will not support the motion on the Scottish rate resolution. 14:41”
“Craig Hoy: If the member spoke with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, he would understand that it is saying that there are compliance costs from this additionally complex and flawed tax system, given that it is not bringing in what the Scottish Government hoped it would bring in. The reality is that someone earning £50,000 is now paying £1,500 more in tax, and someone lucky enough to earn £100,000, such as ministers on the front bench, is paying £3,300 in additional tax. The SNP’s high taxes no longer fall only on high earners; they also fall on nurses, teachers and police officers. It is clear in our budget submission that we would like a reduction in taxes on ordinary Scots. In the budget, we called for the abolition of rates to give a tax cut to hard-working Scots.”
“Mr Hoy was present at the Finance and Public Administration Committee meeting when I asked the Institute for Fiscal Studies about its view on the alleged complication that is caused by Scotland having more income tax bands than the rest of the UK. We heard that there is no evidence of negative effects from our having more tax bands. I can understand why the Conservatives do not want those on higher incomes to pay more, but could Mr Hoy explain exactly what he thinks the harms are of having more tax bands? The Institute for Fiscal Studies could not find any evidence of harms.”
“In closing, I ask the Scottish Government to work with local authorities to review which PPP contracts could be brought back in or could be cancelled early at reasonable value for money for the taxpayer. That was done in Greece with some of its odious debt on the back of its financial crisis in 2015. There is no easy way out, but we need to reduce the toxic legacy and be honest about how we develop the alternatives to pay for the infrastructure that we all agree is required. 13:13”
“Having a central resource for local government to help it to manage projects at every stage, from design, financing, the management of construction and the management of the asset, would be incredibly helpful to councils, which cannot ever realistically have all the skills and expertise that they need for those projects in house. I recognise that when the SNP came into government, it tried the non-profit-distributing model. I am not quite as positive about that as Mr Gibson; although I think that it was well intended, it has not effectively capped profits. Dumfries hospital is a good example of where it did not really work in practice. As we heard from Mr Simpson, many, although not all, PFI contracts contain punitive clauses. In 2004, the then Scottish Executive ended the Skye Bridge contract and rebought it.”
“I was disappointed when the Government announced last year that the introduction of the infrastructure levy power was being dropped, although I am grateful to the Minister for Public Finance for his offer to meet me to discuss that. I do not think that the existing section 75 contribution arrangements are in any way adequate. That is why the Parliament agreed to introduce the infrastructure levy power to fund critical local infrastructure. There are other ways that we can address the issue. We could make existing processes more efficient. There is a lot to learn from the learning estate investment programme, for example, and the collaboration between the Scottish Government and local government on that.”
“Giving the Scottish Government the same prudential borrowing powers that local councils have would certainly help, but, of course, any borrowing results in a debt that needs to be paid. In 2019, at the same time that the then First Minister made her announcement, the Parliament passed the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which created a power for local government to charge an infrastructure levy on private housing developers—if they were to profit from the creation of large numbers of houses, it was only right that they made a contribution towards local services, such as schools and health centres, which would be required to create a community.”
“It is not just a case of there being a transfer of money from the public to the private sector; much of the money has been transferred out of Scotland and out of the UK entirely. There is a huge amount of evidence showing that PFI profits have been offshored into tax havens. The model has no benefit for the UK economy whatever, and there are no benefits for private businesses that are based in the UK. In 2019, the then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced that the Government would consider setting up a national infrastructure company as one of the ways that it could move away from the model. The Infrastructure Commission for Scotland was tasked with considering that. In the end, it recommended against it, but we need an alternative. We need to look at how we can fund critical infrastructure.”
“I thank Kenneth Gibson for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue of PFI legacy debt. To be generous, PFI was introduced by Governments for the right reasons, or at least with the right motivation behind it: a need to improve our public infrastructure, schools, hospitals and so on. It certainly compares well with what we have seen under 14 years of Conservative Government, which slashed capital budgets and oversaw a huge decrease in investment in our national infrastructure, both public and private, with all the resulting economic damage. It has left us with a heavy burden. In 2023, it was reported that £8.5 billion would be paid for £2.9 billion-worth of infrastructure in Scotland, and the English NHS will pay back £80 billion for £13 billion of infrastructure, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research.”
“Graeme Dey: The bill contains a power that strengthens the ability of the SFC to require universities and colleges to do certain things, particularly in relation to the provision of information, and it specifically requires secondary legislation to allow ministers to list what those areas could be. At the moment, it is sufficiently open for those things to be explored, and I am happy to discuss that with Ross Greer, because it is imperative that fair work is at the heart of what all our institutions are delivering.”
“Over the past decade, a number of colleges and universities have reneged on the fair work agreements that they have come to with their campus trade unions. When asked about that last year, the then chief executive of the Scottish Funding Council explained that it lacked the powers to intervene effectively in such situations, but that she had proposed such powers to the Scottish Government ahead of the bill. Have those proposals been reflected in the bill? Will the SFC have the power to intervene where a college or university management breaches a fair work agreement?”
“We can confront the employers who are paying their staff poverty wages that mean that children are sitting at school hungry. Those are the brave decisions that the Scottish Government can make, and I encourage it to do so. If we are to live up to that promise and to truly eradicate child poverty in Scotland—while understanding the limitations of the devolution settlement—there is certainly much more that we can do to confront those whose decisions are actively contributing to child poverty in the first place. 15:48”
“As far as the Greens are concerned, those are steps towards the ultimate objective of universal free school meals from the early years to high school. Having visited, with other members of the Parliament, high schools in Finland, I have seen the massively beneficial effect of a universal, systematic free school meal programme not just on poverty but on attainment, behaviour and the culture of a school community. Ultimately, tackling poverty requires a significant amount of money and public investment in programmes like free school meals. It also requires tackling the root causes of poverty. Those are not all within the remit or the powers of this Parliament and Government, but we can confront some of those whose decisions are creating that poverty in the first place.”
“I am really proud of the expansion of free school meals in Scotland, which the cabinet secretary talked about. No child should be sitting in class hungry in one of the richest countries in the history of the planet. I am proud that, through previous budget negotiations between the Greens and the SNP, we extended universal free school meals to all children in primary 4 and P5. There is an on- going extension to P6 and P7 children who receive the Scottish child payment and, as the cabinet secretary said, we have just agreed to extend the measure further, in the first eight local authorities, to pupils in secondary 1 to S3. That means that thousands of additional young people will receive free school meals.”
“Does he welcome the fact that 200,000 Scots will get a pay rise as a result of the UK Labour Government’s new deal for working people? Ross Greer: I absolutely do welcome the rise in the minimum wage. I would welcome it far more if the UK Government would commit to keeping the national minimum wage at least the level of the real living wage. It has not yet made that commitment. That being said, any rise in the minimum wage is to be welcomed. I have said previously in these debates that, too often, we treat teachers as being something between social workers and miracle workers. We expect them and other school staff to solve all of society’s problems. They cannot do that, but schools can play a powerful role in mitigating those problems.”
“We cannot educate that problem away. Someone has to do those jobs. Perhaps, on an individual basis, with greater education people can move on to a higher-paying job. However, the job that pays the poverty wage will still exist and someone will still have to do it. It is wrong that the job pays that wage in the first place. Those are the problems that we need to tackle. That is why I am proud that, when the Greens were in government, we required any company bidding for a public sector contract in Scotland and those in receipt of grants from the Scottish Government to pay at least the real living wage to the workers who provided the service. Pam Duncan-Glancy: The member makes a really good case for the roles that education can and cannot provide.”
“I am grateful to the Government for bringing this debate to the chamber. It would be wrong to suggest that we can end child poverty through education. We can certainly mitigate it, but we cannot end it. It would be a lie to tell the children of Scotland that they can educate themselves out of poverty in a society and an economy that are structurally designed to prevent that. Far more significant changes would be required in order for them to do that. Of course, education is important for the individual, but it cannot solve the structural problems in our society. Most children in Scotland who live in poverty are in working households. The majority of them have at least one parent or carer who has a job but is being paid such a poor wage that it is impossible for their family to live above the poverty line.”
“There is a broad consensus around the need to build a more compassionate society, and that consensus is powerful.”
“Putting the violent metaphor to the side for a moment, I could not quite understand the question, because that is a style of politics and game playing that does not feed any children, does not create any jobs and does not protect our natural environment. It delivers nothing but headlines. I get that, from the perspective of the media, conflict is interesting and easy to write about, while co-operation is often a bit boring. However, I know what has a better outcome for people and the planet, and I know what the public expect us to do when we come here. Of course, there are limits to compromise. Our parties believe in different things. However, by any standard measure—as Craig Hoy somewhat melodramatically put it—this Parliament has the largest majority of politicians from parties to the left of centre of any in Europe.”
“I should start by congratulating Michael Marra, who I sincerely have a lot of respect for, because that was a truly barnstorming defence of having had the opportunity to achieve something for the people of Scotland, but turning it down. It was a level of passion for fence-sitting that was previously the preserve of our Liberal colleagues, but is apparently now the preserve of the Labour Party, the Liberals having started to engage in the process. Last week, when we announced the agreement on the budget, I was asked by a journalist whether, given everything that had happened to the Greens last year, we should not have taken the opportunity to, in their words, “give the SNP a bloody nose”.”
“Using that opportunity over a couple of weeks, to allow all members to hear the results of committee budget scrutiny, would be a much more effective way of delivering the initial intention behind the format for this debate. That being said, I am grateful to members for sharing the details of all the work that they have undertaken as part of the budget process. 16:36”
“So far I have spoken to the cabinet secretary with responsibility for communities, but I would welcome engagement with the finance secretary on that. The Government’s consultation has shown very strong support for such a change, and a recommendation could be implemented in the remainder of this parliamentary session. I will close on a slightly negative note that contrasts somewhat with Michelle Thomson’s remarks. Much as I have enjoyed this debate, I note that the chamber is not exactly packed or bouncing. Collectively, we need to rethink whether the current format works effectively to relay committee reports to the wider Parliament. We already have a system whereby committee conveners can use decision time to make announcements to the chamber.”
“I was disappointed in the Government’s written response to the committee, which is to the effect that it no longer intends to legislate, in the remainder of this parliamentary session, to allow for council tax increases for second and holiday homes at an equivalent level to the Welsh Government’s policy. Allowing such increases would be a win-win situation. It would raise more money for local services, assist first-time buyers and help communities such as the ones that I represent on Arran and up the west side of Loch Lomond, where the housing crisis is massively exacerbated by second and holiday home ownership. I have good news for the cabinet secretary on that, though. I believe that it would be within the scope of the current Housing (Scotland) Bill to legislate for that change to council tax.”
“This process is difficult because, as our committee’s report acknowledges, there will be winners and losers. However, I feel that it is one of the clearer failures of the devolution era so far that we have failed to do that work already. We should be honest that there will be winners and losers, but we all have a pretty clear idea of who the losers would probably be and of who would end up paying a bit more—that would be people who live in larger houses, who tend to be much wealthier and who have more social and political capital. It would be hard for us to create a process for reforming the system in a way that is even more regressive than our current one.”
“I was disappointed by the Government’s initial response to that recommendation. There was no commitment to new action. To remind members of the need for council tax reform, I note that that tax system is based on valuations from 1991—before I was born. Most people pay the wrong rate of council tax. We would not tolerate that for our income tax system, and yet we are still here on council tax. The UK overall—and particularly Scotland—is an outlier, in European terms, in relation to how small a share of local governments’ budgets they are able to raise for themselves. The need for reform is urgent, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to embark on more cross- party engagement through the joint working group, at national and parliamentary levels, and with our local government colleagues.”
“Co- operation between parties, while holding on to our distinct values, is what the Parliament was intended for. It is what we have proven ourselves capable of, and it is exactly what the public want from us. I am proud of the process that led to the agreement this year. I will focus my remarks on our Finance and Public Administration Committee recommendation on council tax reform and the Scottish Government’s response to it. Last year, the cabinet secretary said to the committee that, for us to move forward on council tax reform, there was a need for “cross-party consensus.” That is a reasonable point, but the committee put it back to the Government that the Government must be the one to facilitate that. If the Government does not create the space for it and open up those discussions, who will?”
“As much as I look forward to next week’s stage 1 debate—which I am sure will be much more partisan and party political—given that the agreement on the budget between my party, the Liberal Democrats and the Government was announced this week, I want to take a moment as the Greens’ finance spokesperson to thank the Government for its constructive engagement throughout the budget process, particularly after Labour’s decision to abstain made the engagement with us and the Lib Dems somewhat less than essential. Such engagement is exactly what the Parliament was intended for. A journalist asked me on Tuesday why I did not simply try to bring the budget down and give the SNP what they described as a bloody nose, but that approach to politics does not feed a single child, make buses cheaper, create jobs or protect nature.”
“Like the minister’s expert advisers, every major animal welfare group, dozens of MSPs across all parties and four in five people across Scotland, I just want these cruel devices to be banned. If the minister cannot commit to doing that today, I will press my amendments and urge all members who want to ban electric shock collars to vote for amendments 13, 14, 18, 20 and 21 in order to achieve that end. I move amendment 12.”
“The Government’s experts have done their job and given absolutely clear advice that the devices should be banned. That advice is still going unanswered, but there is no need to wait. However, if the minister is able to say unequivocally, without condition, that he will bring forward regulations to ban shock collars in the 13 months that remain of this session of Parliament, there will be no need for me to press my amendments. That should not be conditional on there being more reviews or consultation being carried out first, because regulation would require, as part of the parliamentary process, consultation once it is published. All that I am looking for is a clear statement from the Government that it intends to ban shock collars during this session of Parliament and that it will bring forward regulations to that effect.”
“Shock collars are already banned across Europe—in Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Slovenia—and here in the UK, they have been banned in Wales since 2010. The Scottish Government does not support their use; it just has not banned them yet. My amendments are not the only way to do that. Ministers already have the power to ban them by regulation through section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Maurice Golden’s motion that I quoted earlier called for that approach. I have lodged my amendments in this group because that has not happened yet. In all honesty, I am sick of waiting, and I know that animal welfare organisations and many dog owners are, too. We do not need more reviews.”
“Parliament unanimously passed Emma Harper’s bill in 2021 to significantly increase penalties for livestock worrying and to clarify the law to make prosecutions easier. Most livestock worrying happens when a dog is out of its owner’s line of sight. That begs the question whether we think that it is appropriate to shock a dog because it is on the other side of a hill and we think that it might be attacking a sheep. A ban on shock collars, combined with the existing higher penalties in Scotland as a result of Emma Harper’s legislation, should mean that more dogs are kept on leads around livestock in the first place. Scotland has a strong record on animal welfare, but we are lagging behind in this area.”
“Amendment 18 would add the provision against use of shock collars to the code of practice, which is otherwise voluntary, and amendment 13 would make it a “must” do rather than a “may” do. It would mean that ministers “must include” that provision in the code rather than it being suggested that they could. Amendment 20 would mean that use of shock collars “must be relied on as tending to establish liability” for an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and amendment 21 would do a bit of tidying up. A common argument in favour of shock collars relates to prevention of livestock worrying, but NFU Scotland is absolutely clear that the most effective way to do that is to keep a dog on a lead when it is around livestock.”
“For good measure, despite the fact that the bill concerns dogs, Cats Protection wanted it to be known that it, too, opposed the use of shock collars for dogs. Ninety-five per cent of dog owners do not use shock collars and more than 80 per cent of the public want them banned. It is worth being clear that amendment 18 is very specific: it refers only to devices that apply an electric current to a dog’s skin. I have been contacted by dog owners who use vibrating collars to recall their dogs when they are off the leash, particularly dogs with deafness, but they are not covered by the amendment, which is unambiguously about electric shock collars only—those that apply an electric current to the dog’s skin. A ban would, in effect, be achieved by the combination of amendments 18, 13 and 20, with amendments 14 and 21 being tidying-up amendments.”
“It said: “That the Parliament understands that a range of experts, including academics, dog behaviourists, trainers, and vets, consider that the use of handheld electric shock dog collar devices is unnecessary; believes that there is a lack of scientific evidence to support claims that the use of such dog collars reduces the risks of livestock worrying by responsible owners”. Every major animal welfare organisation wants shock collars to be banned. The minister has received a letter in support of my amendments, on behalf of the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, Edinburgh Cat and Dog Home, the Kennel Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals.”
“That was the finding of an expert review that was commissioned by ministers and was published two years ago. However, the Government has not yet responded to it. For years, there has been significant cross-party effort to achieve a ban on shock collars. I credit Maurice Golden with having led much of that effort, including, two years ago, lodging a motion that was signed by dozens of members from across the parties. I will read the first half of the motion, which provides an excellent summary of why we are here.”
“In 2018, the Scottish Government published guidance on dog training aids that said: “With respect to training devices, the Scottish Government does not condone aversive devices/training aids, including electronic shock collars (e-collars)”. That guidance was good progress, but it was not a ban. The Scottish Government, quite rightly, moved to have the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission gather evidence on that question. In April 2023, the commission concluded that exercise. I will read the final paragraph in its conclusion. It said that “on the basis of the evidence considered during the course of our inquiry and in accordance with our remit to provide advice to Scottish Ministers on matters concerning the welfare of protected animals, that the use of e-collars for the training of animals in Scotland should be prohibited”.”
“Regarding the shock collar proposals, shock collars work by giving electric shocks to animals such as cats and dogs, via metal conductors. They make contact at the neck, with up to 6,000 volts being emitted for up to 11 seconds at a time. Depending on the voltage, they can cause discomfort up to significant physical pain, and potentially leave burns on the dog’s skin. At the very least, they need to cause fear and distress— that is the whole point of a shock collar. They have a range of up to 2 miles, which means that animals can be completely out of the owner’s sight when they are shocked. The devices are, in short, cruel.”
“I am not attempting to pre-empt that with a ban, but my amendments would allow ministers to move prong and choke collars into the same space of strict criminal liability that I intend for shock collars, if that is what the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission recommends in the spring. At the moment, my amendments would, essentially, add guidance against their use, rather than a ban. I am keen to hear the minister’s thoughts on those devices. Amendment 22 would give ministers the power to move other provisions of the code from “may” to “must”, which would mean that they could create criminal liability to implement any recommendations that might come at a later point—for example, from the report that will be published in April.”
“Those provisions would therefore be separate from the ban on shock collars, which is in amendments 13, 14, 18 and 20, as well as in the tidying-up amendment 21. The reason for the separation is that I recognise that we are at different stages in the evidence gathering. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report on shock collars was completed two years ago: it was a thorough exercise. Evidence was gathered from experts and trainers, from people who use shock collars and people who oppose them. The report came to the clear conclusion that shock collars should be banned in Scotland. The commission’s report on other aversive training techniques, including prong and choke collars, is due this April.”
“I thank Christine Grahame for taking the bill this far through the process. The focus of my efforts at stage 3 is on banning electric shock collars for dogs. I will cover the broader amendments in the group first, then come to that. Amendment 16 would include a broad point in the code of practice about ensuring the welfare of a dog when training it. The amendment is not related to the ban on shock collars or on any other specific device, but would simply add a line to the voluntary code of practice for potential dog owners on how they train their dog. Amendments 12 and 17 are about specific devices—prong and choke collars—but they do not represent a ban. Like amendment 16, they would add to the voluntary code.”
“I am proud of the progress that we have made in certain areas; however, I am immensely frustrated that I am essentially making the same speech that I make in every one of these debates, because, for nine years now, we have failed to get to grips with what I see as one of the lowest- hanging fruits—one of the easiest areas in which we could make a difference. 15:13”
“In this Parliament, we talk a lot about tackling violence against women and girls, but can we seriously say that we are making progress and that we are proud of the progress that we have made when, in order to talk in any depth about the importance of a basic principle such as consent, it has taken a decade to change just one guidance document on one element of education? This morning, members of the Scottish Youth Parliament confirmed that PSE in our schools is supposed to be co-designed by young people, specifically because of issues raised in relation to sex and relationships education, but that is simply not happening.”
“It is also inclusive of LGBTQ young people, because we know that queer young people are disproportionately victims of violence in school. Age-and-stage-appropriate guidance for boys and young men on the importance of respect and healthy relationships is absolutely essential if we are to tackle the issue. I want to talk about the issue again—I bring it up every time we debate the subject—because of my frustration about the fact that it has taken a decade to change just that one guidance document.”
“For three years, we have had a draft set of new guidance on how to deliver sex education in schools, which starts off with what our committee called for some years ago—a substantial section on the principle of consent and the importance of respect in relationships and respect for women and girls, in particular. It has been sitting as a draft for years now, and I am frustrated by the lack of progress. However, I am pleased that, yesterday, I received an answer from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to a written question, saying that following the consultation that took place, we will finally get a finalised copy of that guidance in the coming weeks. That is important, because the new guidance starts with that substantial section on consent.”