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 4 of 12.
“In our time in Opposition, the Greens have always taken a constructive approach to budget negotiations. We have always believed that our job is to make Green change happen. That is what we told voters we would do if we were elected here, and we were elected here. Making fiery and impassioned speeches can often feel very satisfying, but it does not save a single species, reduce emissions, create jobs or feed children. Change does that. Negotiating in good faith to deliver what the people of Scotland need and what our planet needs does that. Most of the past decade has been one of minority Government, and I am very proud of the huge achievements of the Greens, through our budget negotiations, during our time in Opposition over the past decade. I have always appreciated the Scottish Government’s constructive approach.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: Yes, sir. Members: Oh! Ross Greer: I am very grateful. I understand that, ahead of their impending leadership contest, Labour members are the primary audience for Mr Marra’s speech—[Interruption.] What I am confused about is why, given the great many flaws that he has apparently identified in the budget, Mr Marra did not propose a solution to a single one of them before the Labour Party decided to abstain, which will allow the budget bill to be passed, regardless of what the Greens or the Liberal Democrats negotiated. If the budget is so terrible, surely he would have proposed a change before allowing it to sail through. [Interruption.]”
“The late Queen and the current King put up millions of pounds to make his problems go away, but the problems were real people—real women and girls who had suffered abuse. The victims and survivors are in danger of being forgotten and of being erased by the political fallout. That cannot be allowed to happen. Men’s violence against women and girls is not just an elite problem—it is endemic at every level of our society, and every man has a role to play in solving it. What is the First Minister’s message to women and girls in Scotland who have survived and who continue to endure men’s violence?”
“I echo the First Minister’s tribute to Jeane Freeman and send my love and that of my party to our friend Susan. Nothing that the Prime Minister or others can say now will change the fundamentals of the scandal that is rightly engulfing them. Peter Mandelson was lauded and given huge influence and, ultimately, one of the most important jobs in the British Government, despite it having been public knowledge for years that he had remained friends with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted of child sex offences. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor clearly felt that he was above the law—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Ross Greer: —and, so far, he has been proven correct.”
“I hope that the cabinet secretary and the minister understand the importance of non- domestic rates relief for the sector, and I hope that they will support at least one of the many amendments that I have proposed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: To quell some of the discussion that is going on, and for the benefit of those who are not on the Parliamentary Bureau, I confirm that the bureau has agreed that we will continue to deal with the stage 3 amendments this evening, as well as the issues that we need to deal with at decision time, but that the debate and the final vote on the bill will be postponed.”
“Several people have said to me that this is just another family farm tax, with finance ministers putting things into the budget with no thought about the consequences. That will be deeply damaging to rural Scotland. My amendments 190 to 193 seek to ensure that shoots in deer forests will retain their rights to non- domestic rates relief. They propose a combination of measures, such as guaranteeing relief in law, which is in amendment 192, and ensuring eligibility if a business contributes to activities such as nature conservation non-exclusively, which is in amendment 190. Amendment 191 tries to maintain eligibility for the current small business bonus scheme. Amendment 193 asks that we allow eligibility to be determined through regulations.”
“The Scottish Government has acted to end the rates relief without any prior consultation with the sector at all. The problem is that most shoots carry out a combination of those activities, so they will no longer be eligible for the relief. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has warned that “important conservation work, such as habitat restoration, woodland planting or wetland creation, will be put at risk. Small and medium shoots would instead have to foot the bill for sporting rates with no relief.” I have been contacted by a growing number of constituents who warn that their shoots will no longer be viable and that people will give up their leases. That risks rural employment and could impact gamekeepers and deer managers, and it will have a detrimental knock-on effect on the wider rural economy.”
“Given the time, I will say briefly that I support all the other amendments in the group—from Tim Eagle and Rachael Hamilton—and I urge members to support them. I move amendment 176. Tim Eagle: After a lot of campaigning by a lot of different groups, we finally got the UK Labour Government to move very slightly on the family farm tax, and then only a few weeks ago the Scottish Government stood up and decided to introduce a new farm tax, but this time on sporting estates and shoots. Under the Scottish Government’s planned amendments to non-domestic rates, the small business rates relief that is available to some sporting organisations will be changed. Only shoots and deer forests that carry out deer management, environmental management or vermin control will be eligible, when those activities are undertaken solely.”
“Without that clarification, we risk creating a perverse outcome in which farmers are financially punished for carrying out pest control that benefits food production, nature restoration and the rural resilience outcomes that the Parliament otherwise strongly supports. That would undermine confidence, discourage good land management and weaken the delivery of the public good that the Parliament is intended to advance. My amendment would give ministers the flexibility to uphold their policy intent while correcting an unintended consequence. It proposes a measured and proportionate change, and I urge members to support it. If the Government cannot bring itself to support my amendment, I would appreciate a commitment to work with me and my Scottish Conservative colleagues to find a way forward.”
“I have already suggested that too many conversations are taking place in the chamber. I suggest that they take place either at the back of the chamber or outside it. Jamie Halcro Johnston: Clearly, some people are not concerned about extending the debate. My amendment does not reopen the debate about commercial shooting and it does not seek to extend relief to purely sporting enterprises, although I understand that very few rural businesses operate solely for sporting purposes. It would make it clear that pest control is not a commercial sporting activity and that businesses should not be penalised for exercising or simply holding sporting rights when those rights are incidental, defensive or not exercised at all.”
“I say this without any prejudgment, but it always strikes me that, in council chambers, councillors who have a direct financial interest are simply excluded from proceedings. It is not immediately clear to me from Mr Halcro Johnston’s entry in the register of interests whether any of the businesses that he has listed would directly benefit if amendment 176 was agreed to. It would be in the public interest for him to clarify whether any of the businesses that he is associated with would benefit if the amendment was agreed to. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I am happy to make the point again, because I have already declared my interests as a partner in a farming business, a member of SLE and a member of NFU Scotland. The member is very welcome to check that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Can you resume your seat, Mr Halcro Johnston?”
“I assure Mr Greer that all those factors and powers have been properly and fully applied by the Lord Advocate. Prestwick airport operates at arm’s length from the Government and it has particular responsibilities to exercise. We will consider the issues that Mr Greer has raised in his question.”
“The First Minister: I understand the strength of feeling on the issue, which is why I have come to Parliament to give this statement. It is so important that I am clear with Parliament and the public that, in every respect, the proper application of the legal processes of Scotland has been applied in this case. What the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate cannot do is exercise powers that we do not have. In my statement, I made the point that at no stage did we have the legal basis to board that vessel. That limited what the Scottish Government could do. We have indicated that, where there is to be any question of individuals interacting with the legal process, those individuals have to be able to exercise their rights in the Scottish jurisdiction. As Mr Greer knows, that will involve ECHR rights, too.”
“The US military has abducted two people from Scotland in the middle of the night, despite our highest court ordering that they be kept here, under our jurisdiction. The First Minister has spent months trying to charm Donald Trump. That strategy has failed. He is not our ally—he is a fascist. Our sovereignty has been violated, our courts have been defied and a foreign military has abducted two people from our territory. The Scottish and UK Governments need to respond to that. The US military uses Prestwick airport as a de facto base. The Scottish Government owns the airport. Will the First Minister show Trump that his piracy has consequences? Will he evict all American troops from Prestwick airport immediately?”
“However, one of the effects of the decade during which we have had to endure that particular application is that it has brought much more scrutiny to the level of protection that our national parks are afforded—or, to be more accurate, very often not afforded. This is not just a movement to stop Flamingo Land—we need to prevent that kind of saga from ever happening again. Amendment 76 alone would not do that, but it is an important measure to ensure that communities and experts are never again completely shut out of appeal processes on developments of such significance.”
“The amendment would make a simple change and would not tie anyone’s hands in relation to the outcome: an appeal could be rejected or granted. It would simply ensure that the voices of key stakeholders are heard, because officials are not infallible and it is important to hear from those who have direct knowledge of the application at hand. It also recognises that our national parks are special and we should apply slightly higher standards for major national developments in the parks in comparison with the standards that we would apply elsewhere. I do not need to tell members of the scale of the national campaign to save Loch Lomond, which is now far beyond just a community campaign.”
“It would not require a full public inquiry, although the option is there if necessary, but it would, at a minimum, require that any major or national development should be subject to a public hearing at the appeal stage before a decision is made. It relates only to large significant developments. A public hearing would not be needed every time that someone in Luss wants a conservatory and the national park knocks them back—it is just for developments on the scale of Flamingo Land. Communities deserve the opportunity to have their say, and officials and ministers should have the opportunity to hear from experts, whether they are experts on the basis of living locally or experts on the subject matter under discussion.”
“However, a Scottish Government official then made the decision to grant that appeal—that decision has since been reversed— having heard from absolutely no one in the local community; having spoken to none of the expert stakeholders; and, so far as I am aware, having not even engaged with the national park’s own planning officers. That resulted in what I believe was a fundamental misunderstanding of the expert conclusions that the park itself had come to. That is what has brought me to lodge my amendment 76. It is a simple amendment: it requires only that any major or national development within a national park’s boundaries that goes to an appeal must be subject to a public hearing.”
“It made the decision at the end of a very long day, which had included a site visit in which local residents and any other interested parties were welcome to take part, and at the end of a public hearing in which not only residents and elected representatives such as ourselves but experts such as the Woodland Trust were able to make representations to the national park board so that it could make a decision in full possession of the facts. The board, with those facts, unanimously rejected Flamingo Land’s mega resort application. Flamingo Land appealed the decision, which it had every right to do.”
“My amendment 76, supported by Jackie Baillie, comes out of the experience of the save Loch Lomond campaign. Given the length of time of today’s proceedings, I am not going to recount the whole decade-long saga that has led us to this point, but I want to talk about what happened in September 2024, because that is when the board of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority made its decision on the Flamingo Land application.”
“I have a lot of sympathy with what Daniel Johnson said, and we agreed on much during the stage 1 debate. What has consistently been missing from the system is clear ministerial direction and a clear strategy. We had a purpose and principles document from the Government that failed to set out a clear strategy across the sectors. We have a national strategy for economic transformation that was neither strategic nor transformative and a national performance framework that simply is not used and has sat gathering dust on the shelf from the moment that it was published. That is where the need for alignment is at its greatest—at ministerial level.”
“The Greens will support the bill this evening, for the reasons that I outlined at stage 1 although, at that point, I expressed some scepticism that I will come on to. I begin by thanking the minister and the bill team for their engagement throughout the process. I also thank the minister’s predecessor, Graeme Dey, for his extensive engagement before he handed over the portfolio. The Greens agree with the core premise of the bill. My starting assumption was that I, and Parliament, could not ignore what the reports from Audit Scotland and James Withers said about the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland and, crucially, about the need for greater alignment within the system. Having more of that system under one roof should result in greater alignment. Ministerial direction is the other key part.”
“To make a practical difference, we need to get the definition right in future legislation. Colleges and universities must take every action within their power to reduce the risk of gender- based violence happening. We need to be consistent and cohesive in our approach. Today, we have the opportunity to make meaningful progress on this, so I hope that all members can support this provision. I move amendment 29. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you—no other members have asked to speak on the amendment—[Interruption.] On the basis that the member has been name- checked in the minister’s contribution, I am prepared to invite Pam Gosal to make a brief contribution at this stage.”
“The provision requires post-16 education bodies to act to prevent gender-based violence against their students and staff, and to provide support for students and staff who experience or have experienced gender-based violence. Such bodies will be required to report annually to the SFC on compliance with those new requirements, and the SFC will be required to publish the requirements that it imposes on those bodies. Gender-based violence is not defined in the bill, but the SFC will be required to provide guidance on that and on compliance with the new requirements in general. The SFC must also consult before it issues guidance. Taking such a collaborative approach is preferable to rushing to define gender-based violence in the bill. It is a sensitive and complex term, with different organisations using competing definitions.”
“As I said at stage 2, good work is on-going across higher and further education institutions to address gender-based violence issues on campuses. Amendment 29 intends to build on that good work. I am grateful to Ms Drouet and Pam Gosal for our valuable discussion on the amendment earlier this month, and to Colleges Scotland and Universities Scotland for their constructive engagement with officials on the amendment and the matters that it raises. Our colleges and universities should be places where all students can live, study and socialise safe from harm and harassment. Staff should also be able to work in an environment that is free from the risk of abuse and violence. The amendment can help to deliver that for all.”
“After section 2E The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 7 is on conditions of funding: prevention of gender-based violence. Amendment 29, in the name of Ben Macpherson, is the only amendment in the group. Ben Macpherson: Amendment 29 enables Scottish ministers to impose a condition on the SFC to require the further and higher education bodies that it funds to take action against gender- based violence in their institutions. Colleagues will know that I have been engaged with that work for some years, and today we have a chance to make a meaningful difference. First, I pay tribute to the remarkable and powerful campaigning that Fiona Drouet and EmilyTest have undertaken on the issue. I also thank Pam Gosal MSP for lodging an amendment on the issue at stage 2; we have worked together on amendment 29.”
“There is no practical difference to how the provisions will operate in effect. Where conditions are attached to post-16 education bodies by virtue of sections 9F, 9G and 9H, they will apply to all of the operations of the post-16 education bodies, notwithstanding that those bodies might also provide education and training under other aspects of the 2005 act. I ask members to support all of my amendments in the group. I move amendment 14. Amendment 14 agreed to. Amendments 15 and 16 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to. Section 2D—Duty to place conditions on funding: whistleblowing Amendments 17 to 23 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to. Section 2E—Duty to place conditions on funding: engagement with trade unions, students and external partners Amendments 24 to 28 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to. Amendment 3 not moved.”
“I urge members to support the amendments to ensure that the bill functions effectively. Amendment 12 agreed to. Section 2C—Duty to place conditions on funding: conflict of interest Amendment 13 moved—[Ben Macpherson]— and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 6 is on conditions of funding: general. Amendment 14, in the name of Ben Macpherson, is grouped with amendments 19 and 26. 15:45 Ben Macpherson: My amendments 14, 19 and 26 make the same technical adjustments to the new sections 9F, 9G and 9H of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, as inserted by the bill through non-Government amendments that were accepted at stage 2 to remove incorrect references to sections 12D and 12J of the 2005 act. Those changes simply correct references so that the 2005 act is clearly drafted and functions properly.”
“Of course, post-16 education bodies are slightly different from training providers, in that they have privileges and obligations under the 2005 act that training providers do not. Criteria for training providers will be set out in regulations, and when we award contracts, we can set out conditions in them—for example, on fair work. I hope that that reassures Parliament and Universities Scotland about why we are making these changes. Important considerations for training providers will be set out through regulations in due course and through contracts awarded. I move amendment 12. The Deputy Presiding Officer: No other members have asked to speak. Minister, do you wish to add anything in winding up? Ben Macpherson: I emphasise that no practical or policy changes result from any of the amendments in this group.”
“However, would he be able to put on the record a response to the concerns that Universities Scotland has expressed on the amendments and the definitions that are being used, particularly with regard to issues around conflict of interest, transparency and other considerations potentially not applying to training providers and applying only to colleges and universities? Will the minister clarify whether that was the intention and what consideration he has given to that point? Ben Macpherson: I thank Paul O’Kane for raising those matters and I thank Universities Scotland for its engagement on them. To be clear, the change to the use of the term “fundable post- 16 education bodies” is to make the new section consistent with the rest of the 2005 act, so that legislation marries up across the two pieces of law.”
“Other amendments correct references to “fundable bodies” to make them refer, more accurately, to “fundable post-16 education bodies”. Amendment 61 tidies up a similar reference in new section 12C, on widening access, which resulted from one of my stage 2 amendments. There are no practical or policy changes resulting from any of the amendments in the group. I urge members to support the amendments to ensure— Paul O’Kane: Will the minister take an intervention? Ben Macpherson: I will. Paul O’Kane: I appreciate what the minister is saying about the technical nature of the amendments.”
“Section 2A—Review of credit-based funding model The Deputy Presiding Officer: That takes us on to group 5, on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 13, 15 to 18, 20 to 25, 27, 28 and 61. Ben Macpherson: All the amendments in group 5 seek to tidy up the legislation. They consist of minor and technical drafting adjustments to ensure the good operation of the legislation. All of them, except amendment 61, arise from changes that were made through non-Government amendments that were accepted at stage 2. For instance, amendment 12 inserts the correct definitions from the 2005 act into section 2A of the bill, which were missing from the provision at stage 2.”
“Amendments 46 and 47 bring forward sensible changes to that provision to ensure that the duty to proactively publish bites on the right institutions—fundable post-16 education bodies—and that it applies only in respect of data that relates to the activities for which the body receives public funding. I hope that members will also support amendments 46 and 47 from Ross Greer. I ask Jeremy Balfour not to press his amendment 2, for the reasons that I have set out. If he does press it, I encourage members to vote against it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 2. Jeremy Balfour: I have nothing to add, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek to withdraw amendment 2 as well. Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.”
“Furthermore, the SFC is subject to a general consultation and collaboration requirement under section 22 of the 2005 act, which is an on-going obligation and not limited to specific functions. Amendment 2 creates a blanket requirement that could cut across the whole operation of the 2005 act and result in an unnecessary burden on the organisations involved. It would also be out of step with most other statutory consultation requirements. However, I am happy to support Ross Greer’s amendments 46 and 47. As he has stated, they improve new section 6A on proactive publication, which was introduced in an amendment that was agreed to at stage 2.”
“For those reasons, my amendments 46 and 47 tidy up and clarify a principle that has already been accepted by the committee, and I hope that the Parliament will agree to them. Ben Macpherson: I thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging amendment 2, but I am afraid that I cannot support it. The Scottish Government believes that it is inadvisable to put publication requirements for consultations into primary legislation without strong reasons why it is specifically needed in those circumstances. There are many consultation requirements in the 2005 act, and they are not just for the SFC and Scottish ministers. Colleges and higher education institutions are in some cases required to consult, and, in some places, the 2005 acts says that the SFC must consult only and directly with ministers.”
“Amendment 46 will refine that provision slightly to align it with the language of section 12 of the 2005 act, on the SFC’s funding powers, and to make it clear that it applies to post-16 education bodies. Amendment 47 proposes the addition of a new subsection (1A) to section 6A, such that the new duty will apply only to information that relates to the activities for which the body receives funding from the SFC, whether that is higher education, further education, apprenticeships, work-based learning or national training programmes. That is intended to make the provision proportionate and ensure that we do not impose a blanket duty on those bodies, so it should be easier to operate in practice.”
“I was pleased that the committee agreed to my amendment proposing the insertion of new section 6A at stage 2. It is a hobby-horse of mine that the public have the right to access public data. Section 6A places a duty on the SFC and any education body that receives funding from it to adopt a proactive approach to the publication of data that is considered appropriate for disclosure in the public domain. There is a huge amount of lost economic value in Scotland due to the fact that vast amounts of public data are not routinely available to the public. New section 6A(2) outlines that the approach is intended, in essence, to be the opposite of reactive publication. The SFC will have to identify and publish information without the need for a specific request such as a freedom of information request or a written question by an elected member.”
“Alcohol at football is not about excess—it is about adults and families enjoying the match-day experience responsibly, just as they do in other licensed venues such as theatres and cinemas and at other sports.”
“As members know, I have raised that issue repeatedly, because allowing the sale of alcohol would give our clubs a vital new income stream that could be reinvested directly into football and into the community work that I spoke about. We have already seen a number of pilot schemes across Scotland, including one recently in Paisley, and one in Aberdeen. It is now time for football authorities to gather that evidence and make the case for change. We are no longer in the 1980s, and football fans and football culture have moved on. The tartan army alone has shown how modern supporters represent Scotland positively and responsibly wherever they go.”
“I am grateful to the member for being generous in taking interventions. He said that “every penny matters”. Would he agree that that is the case for fans as well, and that fans in Scotland are increasingly being priced out of buying away tickets because we have no equivalent to the price cap that is in place in England? All teams in Scotland, in particular top-tier teams, should be seriously considering that. George Adam: That is a problem for families in particular, as it becomes very expensive if you start following your team throughout the country, with the travelling and everything else. I agree that we have to look at that. There is another long-standing issue in our game, in my view, which is the ban on alcohol at football.”
“In rounding off, I want to mention that although the Scottish Greens do not object to important changes being delivered through regulations, given the length of time that it took for the bill to be introduced, the lack of clarity on how ministers intend to use secondary legislation to advance so many of its provisions is disappointing. If the bill had been introduced early in the parliamentary session, I would have been more sympathetic to us consulting on how to take forward the regulations after the bill has been passed, but I think that that is a tenuous excuse when we are five years into the session. As I said, we will be content to support the bill, but we are disappointed primarily by what is not in it rather than by the changes that are required to what is in it. 16:18”
“Mr Greer is right to point out that not all local authorities provide family group decision making. The Scottish Government is very supportive of FGDM and of growing it organically. However, I have heard the concerns about the legislative asks in that area. Next week, I will meet Children First to discuss its proposals on FGDM. I assure Mr Greer that that aspect forms part of my consideration ahead of stage 2. Ross Greer: I welcome that intervention and the minister’s announcement that those discussions are on-going. I hope that that is a matter that we will be able to resolve through the stage 2 process. I am conscious of time.”
“However, one third of councils in Scotland do not have family group decision-making services, and there is nothing in the bill to address that situation. I may have missed a commitment that the minister gave in her opening remarks, but I do not believe that I did. I am still unclear about what the Scottish Government’s position is on placing such a duty on local authorities. I understand all the concerns about placing more duties on authorities without providing adequate resourcing, but if we all recognise that family group decision making is absolutely critical at the early intervention stage, I must question why we are allowing a situation in which one third of our local authorities simply do not offer that service. Natalie Don-Innes: I want to provide clarification.”
“As we finalise our manifestos for the election, all of us should probably take into consideration the Law Society’s ask that we seriously consider the consolidation of child law in Scotland, which, for many good reasons, has become increasingly fragmented as we have made individual interventions in an effort to improve the situation. There is a missed opportunity in the bill with regard to early intervention. The minister mentioned family group decision making. I absolutely agree that that is an incredibly important service. If we can get things right at that stage, it will often prevent children from having to be taken into care, which will prevent so much of the trauma and so many of the challenges that come about as a result of that.”
“I welcome what the minister has said about progress on that, and the 12-month timescale in particular, but the reality is that we have before us a bill that could have included many of the changes that we all know are needed. Quite a lot of what needs to be done is relatively obvious, but the relevant provisions are not in the bill because that review did not take place. We took evidence on what the impact of that will be. CELCIS said that it is concerned that we are layering duties on top of duties in a way that will fragment the system. The Law Society of Scotland, in particular, is becoming increasingly concerned about the fragmentation of child law in this country.”
“It has been almost a decade since the Promise and almost 13 years since Mr Dunlop brought those young people in to give evidence. There is a wider point that needs to be considered by the Parliament and by the Scottish Government, which is to do with just how slowly the wheels of change turn in this country. We are often criticised simultaneously for rushing legislation, which results in it being of poor quality, and for taking far too long, especially when the measures in question are often matters of political consensus rather than contention. Oliver Mundell mentioned the fact that the review of the legislative framework underpinning the care system that the Government committed to undertake years ago has not happened yet.”
“It was a stark wake- up call: when he gave evidence, it was close to 13 years, to the day, from the first time that he had come to the Parliament and had brought a group of care-experienced young people to explain the realities of their lives. I welcome all the progress that the minister mentioned in her opening remarks—of course we should celebrate that. However, that progress still leaves us in a situation that is nothing short of absolutely catastrophic for far too many care- experienced people and for far too many of the children who are still in care in Scotland. Although the point has already been made, I have to ask why it has taken five years—almost the entire length of this session of the Parliament—for this bill to be introduced.”
“It is difficult to use that word—“hope”—in this context because, in the decade that I have served in this Parliament, I have seen that sense of hope drain away among the many care-experienced people who have had to campaign and fight so hard to see these improvements. This bill has been a long time coming. Like other colleagues, the Greens will support it today, but, following on from what Paul O’Kane has just said, we are under no illusions that this bill alone will fix the situation. I encourage any colleague who was not sitting on the Education, Children and Young People Committee when we took the first round of evidence on this bill not only to go back and read the Official Report of it but to listen to the evidence that Duncan Dunlop gave us.”
“As other members have done, I pay tribute to those who have got us to this point and, in particular, to our care-experienced community in Scotland who have had to fight so hard and for so long to get this bill before the Parliament. Many of us will have had the experience of sitting with our care- experienced constituents as they have shared some of the most deeply intimate and personal moments of their lives: the deep trauma, the triumphs, and their hope not only for themselves as individuals but for the entire care-experienced community and for those who inevitably will come after them.”
“I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will take forward the details of that.”