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 2 of 12.
“As far as the remaining amendments in the group are concerned, the Scottish Government has no comment to make, aside from the technical points that can be found in the commentary. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite Liam McArthur to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 94. Liam McArthur: I thank Jeremy Balfour and Stephen Kerr for setting out the rationale for the amendments that they spoke to, and I thank the Scottish Government for identifying the issues that it has with the relevant amendments. I repeat that I have some sympathy with the points that Mr Balfour and Mr Kerr have made. When I was drafting the bill, much of what they have articulated was in my thinking. However, I suspect that their view stems from a misunderstanding of the role of the proxy, which is a facilitative one.”
“I am not concerned only about solicitors and proxies opting out. Is the cabinet secretary able to give an indication of other areas in which the UK Government may be willing to grant an opt-out? We had a long debate about that on Tuesday, but I am still not clear on who could opt out. Which organisations would be able to do so? Can the cabinet secretary share any further information on that point? Neil Gray: Unfortunately, that is the best that I can put on the record, because that issue will be subject to discussion and negotiation. We cannot provide a guarantee with regard to what the UK Government will commit to beyond what it has already put on the record. I recognise that that is a challenge for colleagues, and I wish that it were not the case. We have covered the matter in great detail, but that is where we are.”
“The Scottish Government considers that amendment 191 might raise issues of legislative competence relating to the H1 employment and industrial relations reservation in the Scotland Act 1998. There are also technical issues with the definition of a solicitor and with the lack of definition of an advocate, which is relevant given that the latter term is used elsewhere in the bill in another context. In response to Mr Balfour’s query, I say that the UK Government has given agreement in principle to allow for opting out of participating in assisted dying. The detail of a section 104 order will be for discussion and negotiation. I know that that does not fully address Mr Balfour’s point, but it is the best that I am able to do. 15:15 Jeremy Balfour: I thank the cabinet secretary for his helpful remarks.”
“I share the Government’s concerns about the drafting of the amendment, but Mr Balfour’s key point—that there should be consequences if someone is essentially acting as a false proxy—is correct. Is it the Government’s understanding that that would be covered by the coercion offence in the bill? I assume that if somebody were to act in that manner, it would be possible to prosecute them for the criminal offence of coercion as a result of that separate section of the bill. Neil Gray: Mr Greer makes a fair point, on which I cannot comment. It is an area that I have not been voting on and that I have not passed comment on, because it involves an ethical consideration. However, Mr Greer’s point is on the record.”
“I would certainly like more than just one night to consider the significant changes that are being made to the bill at this stage before we have that final debate. Jeremy Balfour: I absolutely agree with Ross Greer. If we were to move stage 3 proceedings to Monday, we have the Tuesday the week after, when we are due to finish at 5 o’clock. That would give us seven days to consider the bill in its final form, and would allow those have caring responsibilities to have that notice. If we do not do that, we will exclude members who otherwise would want to be in the chamber on Friday. That is not an open Parliament, and I think that there are real concerns about the policy.”
“Will the member give way? Jeremy Balfour: I will finish this point, and then I will give way. People need notice, because many people cannot change their arrangements at the drop of a hat. I am not sure that those who do not have those responsibilities fully understand where we are on that. Ross Greer: I have real sympathy with the argument that Jeremy Balfour lays out. Frankly, it was obvious at the start of the week that this was going to happen, and a decision should have been made earlier. However, if we move stage 3 proceedings to Monday, I do not believe that members will have sufficient time to consider the bill as amended before we debate it in its final form on Tuesday.”
“I, too, would be grateful if that could be clarified in the guidance, because I think that the statement should be recorded in the patient’s medical records. Above all, I say to members that, although the bill sets out what should happen if the decision was to proceed with the process, we should think very carefully about whether the bill provides sufficient clarity about what should happen if the decision was not to proceed. At the very least, some of the provisions in the amendments in this group have merit and should be agreed to.”
“With regard to Daniel Johnson’s amendment 9, where would the statement of dissatisfaction be recorded? Would it go into the patient’s medical record? If so—and if amendment 9 is agreed to— I encourage the cabinet secretary to commit to putting that in the guidance. I agree with the purpose of the amendment, but I am not entirely clear where that statement would go and in which record it would be put. I presume that it would be put into the patient’s medical record, but it would be useful if it could be confirmed that that is the intention. Daniel Johnson: That is very much the intention. The fact that it does not say that explicitly in amendment 9 is probably a drafting oversight, which is unfortunate, but that was my intention when I gave my instructions.”
“It is important to set out the Scottish Government’s approach to the bill, and, for the sake of transparency and clarity, to set out how I, on the Government’s behalf, will approach these proceedings over the coming days. As Mr Hepburn has already stated, the UK Government has agreed in principle to resolve legislative competency issues via a section 104 order. The UK Government has sent a letter to the UK Parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee confirming that, and the letter has been published by that committee. Should the bill pass, Scottish and UK Government officials will continue to engage on the final form of the order.”
“Neil Gray: Of course, Presiding Officer. The issue that Mr Hepburn raises is important, because I know that MSPs are concerned about the elements that are to go through the section 104 process. It is clear that it would have been preferable for all those issues to have been dealt with through a section 30 order. That would have been neater, given what we are wrestling with in relation to some of the elements of the section 104 process. We negotiated in good faith with the UK Government. Its position was that the elements that are to be dealt with by a section 30 order fall within the ambit of section 30, and it was clear that it wanted the remainder to be dealt with through a section 104 process. It will be for the UK Government to explain why that was the case.”
“Jamie Hepburn: On the issue of the section 104 order, we have had sight of the letter that went to the Scottish Affairs Committee, which I note was not sent to MSPs directly—I think that it should have been, but that is an aside. The cabinet secretary has already set out that the elements of the bill that relate to medicines can be dealt with through a section 30 order. Can the cabinet secretary set out what reasons the UK Government gave, if any, that this area could not be dealt with through a section 30 order rather than a section 104 order? I think that a section 30 order process would have been much more preferable. The Presiding Officer: Before the cabinet secretary responds, I remind members that we will come on to these issues, and it is very important that we continue to focus on the issue that is in front of us at this moment.”
“At this stage, I can say only that provisions in the bill may, or could, be outwith the competence of this Parliament, because ultimately that would be a decision for the Supreme Court to take. I have set out the Government’s position on those areas in the legislation that we feel are beyond our legislative competence, and I will speak to those issues as we go through the bill. As I will come to shortly, the UK Government has also published its approach to the negotiations around the issue of the requirement for a section 104 order, which will come about if the bill is passed. I am happy to liaise with Mr Greer or anyone else during the course of the debate on the bill with regard to issues of legislative competence.”
“In the letter from UK ministers to the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee, the phrases “training, qualifications and experience” and “qualifications and experience” are used interchangeably. It is the view of some outside this place, including a number of organisations that have engaged extensively on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill and have sought legal advice, that training is not subject to the G2 reservation in the 1998 act, although they acknowledge that qualifications and experience are. Will the cabinet secretary provide a bit more detail as to why the Scottish Government believes that training is covered by that reservation? That certainly was not my understanding before we began dealing with the bill. Neil Gray: I appreciate the intervention from Ross Greer.”
“The First Minister has said that America and Israel’s attack on Iran is not compatible with the international rules-based system. In other words, it is illegal under international law, so will he now ban the American military from using Prestwick airport?”
“Flight data shows that, in the week leading up to the United States and Israeli attack on Iran, 24 US military aircraft landed at Prestwick airport and some of those came directly from Israel. That is a significant increase in American military activity at an airport that is owned by the Scottish Government. We now know that that was in preparation for their bombing campaign against Iran. Trump and Netanyahu are not liberating the Iranian people from a brutal regime by murdering their children, as they did when they killed dozens of little girls shortly after they arrived for lessons at a Tehran school on Saturday. The Israeli military is rightly banned from using Prestwick airport because of its genocidal assault on Palestine.”
“This is one of the richest countries in the history of the world. I, for one, and certainly the Greens will be rejecting the Conservatives’ attempt to create a doom loop that says that the only thing that we can do to make our finances sustainable is to punish the most vulnerable in our society. [Interruption.] We should all be proud of the decisions that this Parliament has taken collectively over the past decade to lift children out of poverty and transform their lives. We now must accept that, to make that sustainable, we need to get serious about wealth redistribution in this country. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I give another gentle reminder that reaction to what is said is one thing, but I do not need a running commentary on what is being said in real time. 16:38”
“However, they are quite happy with poverty pay in this country, so I will not be taking any lessons from them on the social security system. The Conservatives are pushing all of us to make what they describe as tough choices. Those are not tough choices for them or, by and large, their supporters, but they say that there is simply no option other than to make huge cuts to the services that we provide to the most vulnerable people in our society. [Interruption.] Just a few weeks ago, a Scottish Government publication pointed out that the top 2 per cent of people in this country have more wealth than half the population combined. If we are talking about tough choices, we need to think about who they are tough for. Who do we expect to shoulder the burden of getting our finances back on a sustainable footing?”
“I would not expect the parents of children who are struggling to make an active choice to put their family in a worse financial situation because the only employment opportunities that are available to them provide such low wages, in part as a result of deliberate decisions that the Conservative Party has taken. If the Conservatives believe that work is the route out of poverty, they should support efforts to ensure that no employer is allowed to pay poverty wages. The reality is that two thirds of children in this country who are in poverty are in working households. That is the problem that we need to solve. I would have more respect for the Conservatives’ position on the social security system—although I certainly would not agree with it—if it was combined with a serious effort to eradicate poverty pay in this country.”
“On the one hand, the Conservatives say that people who are in receipt of social security benefits should be more focused on work or take on more work and, on the other hand, the Conservatives have objected to every rise in the minimum wage for years. The reason why people in the social security system are having to make difficult choices about whether to take on more work is because the UK is such a low-wage economy as a result of choices that the previous Conservative Government made. [Interruption.] The Conservatives need to own that decision.”
“Craig Hoy: Will Ross Greer take an intervention? Ross Greer: I would be delighted to hear from Mr Hoy on whether he is somehow rejecting peer- reviewed studies in The BMJ and The Lancet, and, if so, on the basis of which qualifications. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Briefly, Mr Hoy. Craig Hoy: I point Mr Greer to an SNP Government study that says that one in 10 recipients of the Scottish child payment is changing the way that they interface with the labour market, turning down additional hours or rejecting a pay increase. Would it not be better if those people took the additional hours or the pay increase and freed up the money to use for other people who might be living in poverty? Ross Greer: Mr Hoy helpfully highlights another area of Conservative hypocrisy.”
“The spectre of Reform robbing it of two thirds of its vote has sent it right back to the worst of George Osborne’s economics and these attacks on the most vulnerable. The Conservatives say that tough choices need to be made—that is how they phrase it. However, every tough choice that they suggest is not tough for them and, by and large, it is not tough for the people who vote for them. The people whom it is tough for are the most vulnerable families in our society—the people whom they want to rob of what is often literally life-saving support. Craig Hoy did not like this when I brought it up in the previous budget debate, but studies in The BMJ and The Lancet have shown between 150,000 and 350,000 excess deaths across the UK as a direct result of the austerity that the previous Conservative UK Government unleashed.”
“Those are choices that we should be rightly proud of. John Swinney: Will Mr Greer comment on what appears to me to be the arrant hypocrisy of Conservative Party members, who voted for legislation on the establishment of Social Security Scotland and its underpinning by the values of dignity, fairness and respect, but then spend all their time in this chamber attacking social security expenditure and some of the most vulnerable in our society? Ross Greer: The First Minister has highlighted the descent of the Conservative Party over the past decade. Just a few years ago, it had moved a bit closer to everyone else’s position in recognising the need to do right by the most vulnerable families in our community. However, now, the mask has slipped and the nasty party is back.”
“Yes, our social security system is placing financial pressure on our public finances, but that is a result of choices that we should be proud of. We should be proud to own the decisions that we have made on social security in this Parliament. Yes, there has been a financial implication—I will come to that in a minute—but the most important outcome of the system is that Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where child poverty is falling. This is the only part of the UK where we are materially transforming the lives of some of our most vulnerable families. That is a result of the decisions that we have made. Furthermore, Scotland is also the only part of the UK where you can get free university tuition, where young people can travel on the bus for free and where we have free personal care.”
“I do not want to repeat all that now— perhaps I will return to a bit of it later, if there is time—because I want to focus in the final budget debate of this session of Parliament on the overall state of our public finances. We all acknowledge that Scotland’s public finances are no longer sustainable. The question is why, and what do we do about that? On the why, we need to reflect on the reality of 15 years of Conservative austerity. The Labour Party has not entirely ended that, but I acknowledge that there has been a difference since it won the UK Parliament election in 2024. However, decisions such as increasing employer national insurance contributions give us the feeling that, for every two steps forward, we have to take a step back. It is not just that. Demand for social care has been growing.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary not just for the constructive relations that we have had over the past couple of years in her current portfolio but, as Michael Marra said, for serving Scotland in public office for a quarter of a century. Throughout the period that we have worked together, I have always found the cabinet secretary to be someone willing to listen, even on those issues where I have been at my most challenging. I have found that, where there have been opportunities for co-operation, we have been able to make that work to the benefit of the people of Scotland—some of which I will be proud to talk about in this debate. I talked at stage 1 about some of the priorities with which the Greens went into the budget negotiations.”
“I hope that they can take some comfort today from seeing how widely respected and loved she was and still is across the chamber. 14:18”
“As the First Minister said, it is most obvious in the social security system that we now have—a system that Jeane designed and that was intended to give people dignity and to lift them up, rather than punish them for the circumstances in which they found themselves. She built that system by listening to and trusting the people who most needed its support. Jeane always saw politics as being about people. She had a clear vision and was of a deep ideological conviction, but that did not mean getting lost in political abstracts. She certainly did not see this Parliament as a place for pontificating. This was a place to get stuff done for the people who we represent. She was unquestionably one of the most able and talented people ever elected to this Parliament. My thoughts, prayers and love are with Susan and Jeane’s whole family.”
“I had the privilege of speaking alongside her at a number of public meetings, including in places such as Bearsden, which were not exactly hotbeds of support for our cause, but where people were absolutely willing to listen to Jeane. She exuded authority and had extensive knowledge, but I do not think that that was why people were so willing to listen; it was because she was so obviously and deeply passionate. She was not just a policy wonk; she was someone who was driven by a vision for this country of a fairer and more just Scotland. That was a vision that she brought to Parliament.”
“As Mike Russell noted in Jeane’s obituary, she started her party-political journey in the young communists. That was a proud tradition, and one that many of the leading feminists of recent decades started in. I mention that because I think that Jeane Freeman will probably be the last holder of high office in this country to have started out as part of that particular political movement, which means the end of quite a significant chapter in the political history of this country. For the independence movement, which is how I got to know her, she was an incredible advocate of our cause, as someone who was serious, accomplished and a former senior figure in a Labour Administration.”
“I start by associating myself with the point that Anas Sarwar opened with—just remembering Jeane brings a smile to my face. That is tempered somewhat by Jackson Carlaw’s observation, as I have been at the receiving end of some of those eviscerations in the chamber, which was a usefully humbling experience for a first-time member. I first met Jeane Freeman at a cocktail bar, Bluedog, on West George Street in Glasgow, where I was with Susan, Shirley-Anne Somerville and other former colleagues. It was an orange juice for me, although Jeane and Susan were having something much more sophisticated. I wanted to open with that because knowing Jeane at first through Susan was to know the incredible love that they had for each other, and that was a privilege to behold.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sue Webber to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 64. Sue Webber: I think that the public expect us to attend and participate in Parliament. I accept the challenges with the definition of attendance and perhaps with that of participation. I press amendment 64. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“My issue with them is that they consider remote participation as attending. That is our current way of working, but my original proposal was that MSPs should be making the effort to come into Parliament once in a while. I know that not everyone agrees with that—Mr Kerr possibly does—but I feel very strongly about that, so I oppose these two amendments on that basis. I can see what Sue Webber is trying to do with amendments 67 and 67A by taking the standing orders route, but, although I am strongly of the view that the non‑attendance issue needs to be tackled, I share the minister’s concerns about competence and I would not want to pass amendments that are not competent, as that could put the whole bill at risk if it passes. All amendments in this group should be opposed.”
“However, there will always be members who do not attend— there have been, and there are, members like that. That is just life. My view was, and is, that we need to tackle the issue. The question before us is whether these amendments are the right way to do that. Mr Kerr was probably not following the proceedings at stage 2—not that I expected him to—and he perhaps did not read the committee’s report, which was very uncomfortable with the proposal. I simply had to take a pragmatic view and accept that that is the way it is, but the issue still needs to be addressed—if not now, in the next session of Parliament. I offer this suggestion to Mr Kerr: if he is returned and I am returned, we ought to revisit the issue. Amendments 65 and 66 are essentially alternatives to amendment 64.”
“I ask Graham Simpson for his reflections on why, given that we started off with the intention of remedying a situation that many of us found unsatisfactory, the bill does not do what we set out to achieve. I say “we” because the Scottish Conservatives were promoting the idea initially. Graham Simpson: Stephen Kerr is entirely right—that is the history of the bill. It actually began with a discussion between me and the now Baroness Davidson. Throughout this process, I have been at pains not to name individual members, and I have not done so. I have to say that, when I was in the Conservative group, we did that in relation to one member and I was uncomfortable with it. I stopped doing it because I do not think that this is about individuals.”
“Amendment 64 includes a very short list of reasons that Sue Webber presumably thinks are acceptable for taking a leave of absence. My issue with the amendment is that there may be other valid reasons for someone being unable to be at work. I also share the minister’s concern about a lack of any external or independent oversight of the removal process. I therefore oppose amendment 64. Stephen Kerr: Graham Simpson’s journey with the bill started with the levels of discontent that he and others felt about one particular instance in which a member did not turn up to work for years. Now that we are at stage 3, the primary purpose of introducing the bill will not be fulfilled in the legislation that is before us.”
“On the basis that the change would be necessary as a result of Mr Cole- Hamilton’s amendment being agreed to, I support Ms Webber’s amendment 71. Graham Simpson: In this group, Sue Webber has reintroduced the idea that MSPs should be required to attend proceedings in the Parliament at least once every six months unless they have good reason not to. That approach was what first started me on this journey. However, that provision was removed at stage 2. The committee was unconvinced that it could work fairly, even though every workplace in the land does not allow staff to stay away for as long as they like without good reason. Sue Webber’s amendments in this group do not quite fulfil the brief, save for one of them.”
“The bill is intended to address misconduct and improve the democratic accountability of MSPs. Non-attendance, however frustrating it might be for other MSPs, does not indicate misconduct, nor does presence indicate that someone is taking their responsibilities as an elected member seriously. The amendments would not address misconduct, nor would they improve democratic accountability, but they would give rise to issues of competence. I therefore oppose amendments 64, 65, 66, 67 and 67A. As I will discuss when we arrive at group 7, I support Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 35, which would add a review provision to the bill. As a consequence of amendment 35 being agreed to, a change to the long title of the bill would be required. I note that Mr Cole-Hamilton supports Ms Webber’s amendment 71, which would make the required change.”
“By requiring reasons to be shared with a committee, option 2 does not take account of the need for privacy or confidentiality with regard to the member or their loved ones. I move to the issue of competence. The two options that involve the Presiding Officer would lack any external or independent oversight of the removal process, while the third option for removal would involve a committee decision to approve a reason for non-attendance. None of the options would include a plenary vote on removal; the decision of the Presiding Officer or committee would be the only way to avoid removal. A decision to refuse to accept a reason would not be subject to any form of appeal or review, so could be considered to be arbitrary. That would engage concerns that relate to the ECHR and give rise to issues of competence.”
“With respect to the office of the Presiding Officer, I have concerns about such significant discretionary power being placed in the hands of the Presiding Officer, as would be provided for in option 2. The Presiding Officer would be responsible for determining what reasons are acceptable outside of any framework or guidance. Where are the transparency and fairness in that for the member or for the Presiding Officer? A system of notification and approval that is set out in standing orders with determinations made by a committee would provide for a degree of transparency. However, I return to the point that I made earlier that introducing such a system would require the construction of a bureaucracy to force those who have genuine reasons for absence to justify themselves.”
“A monitoring and reporting bureaucracy would also need to be put in place to enable the legislation to work. 16:45 The first option, which is provided for by amendment 64, would put into law a limited list that that the Presiding Officer would use to deem whether an absence is for an acceptable reason. As with any list, the reasons that are noted in the amendment are not exhaustive. Although I welcome that one of the suggested reasons is caring for someone “who is near the end of life”, it would not be deemed to be an acceptable reason for absence if a person is caring for someone who is seriously ill or going through treatment for a serious illness such as cancer but who is expected to, or who it is hoped will, recover.”
“I am afraid that none of the options is satisfactory and they all give rise to competence concerns—like those that I raised in relation to Sue Webber’s group 2 amendments—that could, if the options were agreed to, result in the Government having to seek a motion to adjourn these proceedings. Before I move to issues of legality, I will set out a key point: none of the three options would actually address the problem of non-attendance. All an MSP would need do is set foot in this building for one day in 180, or log on to proceedings for one day in 180 in order to avoid being removed as an MSP. However, the amendments would impose a burden on those who have a genuine and legitimate reason for being away from the Parliament for an extended period.”
“Mark Griffin set out his concerns about “monitoring, privacy and having a committee of MSPs making judgments on what does and does not constitute a reasonable explanation for non-attendance.” His concern then and my concern now is that the bill would “force members to disclose personal circumstances or, perhaps, the circumstances of family members for whom they act in a caring capacity.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 29 January 2026; c 47.] As an alternative to Mr Griffin’s amendments, Sue Webber said that she was testing the water with her stage 2 amendments, which she did not press, as it was clear that the committee did not support them. These new amendments revive the issue, but with a range of options on the table.”
“It is not that a debate on that issue is not important—indeed, it is important that the debate continues—but it is perhaps best done outside the scope of the bill until we can reach an agreement on what non-attendance amounts to. Graeme Dey: At stage 1 and again at stage 2, the Government made its views known on provisions to remove members of this Parliament on the grounds of non-attendance. We did not support removal for non-attendance then and we do not do so now. Mark Griffin’s amendments, which were agreed to at stage 2, removed the non-attendance provisions from the bill, helping to make it only about recall.”
“That is why I lodged that specific amendment. Martin Whitfield: It might be that Parliament will find an ability to coalesce around the issue of non- attendance in the same way that we were able to coalesce around the requirement for people, who are unable to vote for personal reasons, to pass that vote on to someone else. It took the best part of two and a half years to reach that point. It came about through discussions, so we had an agreement about what we meant and about how far we intended those edges to go. With all respect, we have not reached that point with non- attendance, because we have not been able to agree on its definition—whether that be in the chamber or remotely—during the consideration of this bill.”
“We do not have a settled view on how to assess it, and the challenge with regard to all of these amendments is that they would place on the Presiding Officer an almost unimaginable pressure, with people screaming about non-attendance. Sue Webber: Will the member take an intervention? Martin Whitfield: I will in a moment. The Presiding Officer could be aware of information that they rightly cannot put into the public domain but is pertinent to the decisions that they make using the prescribed list of approved reasons for non-attendance. I will take the intervention now. Sue Webber: One of the suggestions that I have put forward is something that is akin to the current system for giving members a proxy vote, which I accept has worked well. I do not think that any member has had an issue with that being presented to them.”
“One of the challenges that constantly came up was, “What do you mean by non-attendance?” We have heard in the interactions in the debate this afternoon that members might not be in the chamber because they are undertaking legitimate constituency or regional duties elsewhere, and we have heard assertions about whether physical attendance in the chamber is necessary. That sits at the heart of the challenge with regard to non- attendance. As Sue Webber mentioned at the end of her remarks, reference is often made to the situation within our councils, where the point about attendance is specifically referred to in relation to a specific meeting, and that can be matched up or not matched up. In the Parliament, does attendance relate to attendance at committees, in the chamber or remotely? Is it about voting?”
“That is the whole point of having parliamentary and party groups—[Interruption.] Are members okay with that? I recognise that non-attendance has clearly garnered some concern among members, but I raise the fact that such a provision already exists at local government level, and there have been a number of instances in which disgraced members have been able to continue to draw a salary without doing any work for the constituents who elected them. I invite members to work with me to find a solution that would bring non-attendance back into the bill. I move amendment 64. Martin Whitfield: I rise in relation to group 6, in order to oppose the amendments that seek to reintroduce the issue of non-attendance. Throughout the consideration of this bill, there has been much discussion about non-attendance.”
“Sue Webber: My amendments ask members to turn up at least once in 180 days, Mr Greer— Craig Hoy: [Made a request to intervene.] Sue Webber: There have been instances in which members of the party of government have not turned up, which is the very reason that we introduced the bill. I will take the intervention from Mr Hoy. Craig Hoy: I thank Sue Webber for giving way. Perhaps Mr Greer has spotted that, this afternoon, some Conservative MSPs have been meeting members of community councils from across Scotland who are appalled at the industrialisation of our countryside under the so-called green revolution led by the Green revolutionaries on the other side of the chamber. Sue Webber: Thank you, Mr Hoy. As MSPs, we have very challenging and complex diaries to manage and we cannot be in every single proceeding in every single committee.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Sue Webber: I will, Mr Greer, if you give me a second. Amendment 71 would mean that, if my amendments are agreed to, the bill would allow for the immediate removal of MSPs in some circumstances, not just recall. I give way to Mr Greer. Ross Greer: Sue Webber said that it is a privilege to be elected to this place, and I agree. She said that, in return for that privilege, members should at least turn up for work. I cannot help but notice that about a third of the Conservative group have not turned up to vote in these proceedings, either in person or online, which appears to be a consistent pattern of non-attendance in that group. Surely, if being a member is a privilege and we should turn up for work, that should start with the group of members who have lodged these amendments on attendance.”
“Clearly, we cannot devolve income tax, but there is a desperate need to reform local taxation in this country and to give our colleagues in local government the powers that they need. In the debate before this one, we heard about issues such as the cruise ship levy that would massively benefit communities such as Inverclyde, which I represent, or Orkney. I hope that, in the next session of Parliament, we can defend our progressive record on income tax but move to the far more urgently needed work that is required to fairly tax wealth in this country.”