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 9 of 12.
“I thank Bill Kidd not just for lodging the motion but for his lifelong commitment to peace and justice. The Scottish Parliament will sorely miss his voice as of next May. I want to ask Israel’s defenders how they can sleep at night. I also want to ask that question of the people who, two years ago, condemned those of us who pointed out that Israel had bombed a hospital in Gaza. Where are those voices now, when every single hospital in Gaza has been almost completely destroyed and hundreds—if not thousands—of doctors, nurses and other hospital staff have been murdered by Israeli forces? Where are those who denied that Israel would ever target Palestinian children now that we have the testimonials of surgeon after surgeon saying that all they do all day is operate on children?”
“What we saw in Israel on 7 October was appalling, too, and the fact that people are still being kept hostage and away from their families as a bargaining chip is something that no one can support. We must have a balanced resolution that condemns terrorism, supports Israel’s right to self-defence and promotes direct negotiations with a two-state solution. I will finish with a quote: “The path to peace lies not in one-sided declarations but in fostering dialogue, accountability and mutual security. Let us work towards a resolution that brings hope to both Palestinians and Israelis.” 18:40”
“No one is going to defend that—I am not going to defend it. I think that Ross Greer also acknowledges that Hamas, a recognised terror group, is using humanitarian aid for its own means, by preventing it from getting to those who need it and by using it to redouble its efforts to rearm. I know that we are short of time, but I need to say that an immediate ceasefire such as is called for—one that does not ensure the release of all the remaining hostages—cannot be supported. Historically, ceasefires have been exploited by Hamas to rearm and regroup, as has been seen in the violations of past agreements during the 2014 and 2021 conflicts. We must take that on board. I reiterate that what we are seeing in Gaza is appalling. We all want to see it stop.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I will in one moment, Mr Greer. The international community has been clear that Hamas should play no future role in the civilian administration of Gaza. Unless its control of the aid supply chain is broken, Hamas will continue to exert influence over Gazan streets and perpetuate the cycle of violence and suffering that we all continue to witness. Ross Greer: I absolutely agree that aid should not be used for violence. Will the member acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that, as Bill Kidd mentioned, Israeli soldiers are systematically executing starving Palestinians who are queuing for aid? Will he join us in condemning that? Douglas Ross: I would never in any way—no one would—endorse executions of women and children who are waiting to get aid.”
“The bill goes some way towards addressing those challenges; however, on its own, it is clearly not enough. No one would suggest that it is, but this afternoon is a hugely important moment, as I said, because for the first time in 20 years for Gaelic and the first time ever for Scots, those languages are being recognised in law by the Parliament. We have a stronger bill in front of us as a result of the work of the Parliament and tireless advocates such as Wilson McLeod, Gillian Munro and Matthew Fitt from Scots Hoose. We can all be proud of the bill that we are going to vote for this afternoon. 17:45”
“She had been in Stornoway a couple of days before coming to Parliament for the stage 1 process. She said that one of the best examples that she could give of Gaelic as a living language was seeing a group of teenage boys misbehaving in Gaelic in Stornoway. That was the example that she used of what a living language really looks like. New, tangible provisions in the bill to advance that are essential, but I do not think that we should dismiss the value of the signal in and of itself that Parliament sends by passing the bill. Symbolism matters. The legitimacy of Gaelic and Scots in this country is still being challenged, and the Government and Parliament are making a clear statement in law that we believe that these languages—our languages—have value.”
“However, we are still seeing a precipitous decline in people who can and do use the language in their daily lives.” We have started to address that with the reporting requirements and some of the specifics that will come later through guidance and strategy, but the contrast between the growth in the number of people with Gaelic language skills in our cities and the decline in traditional communities is stark. There is huge demand for GME schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and some extracurricular activities in Gaelic are being established, so there is some progress, but it is clearly not yet a community language there—you cannot use Gaelic when you go shopping in Glasgow or Edinburgh. Compare that with the evidence that one of our witnesses gave us.”
“They are brilliant advocates for both languages in the Scottish Government, and the cabinet secretary should be very proud of their work. We all understand the context for Gaelic. As has been mentioned, the number of learners is growing, largely as a result of the Duolingo effect and the establishment of more GME schools in our cities. However, in traditional communities, where Gaelic is a living language, it is in steep decline. Misneachd Alba, the Gaelic activist organisation, has said: “We desperately need qualitative targets, both overall and in GME output. We are seeing an improvement in the overall numbers of people who self-identify as having some Gaelic ability, thanks to Duolingo, GME and other learning initiatives.”
“I do not want to lose sight of the importance of what I think is the most significant element of the bill for the Scots language, which is simply its recognition in law for the first time. Symbolic recognition is important, after centuries of denigration. Scots is a living language and thrives in all sorts of ways that Gaelic does not, despite sustained efforts to force it out. We have waited 20 years for a new bill on Gaelic. It is fair to say that, when the bill was first published, it was underwhelming and would not have had the transformational impact that we are all looking for. The amendments that have been lodged and agreed to over stages 2 and 3 have made significant improvements to it. I commend the excellent bill team, who worked with members of all parties on amendments.”
“I think that we all went into the bill process agreeing about not only the crisis for Gaelic as a living language but its importance to Scotland’s culture, but there was not that same consensus on the status, importance or even definition of Scots. We have grown support for legislative provisions on Scots through the process, but, as we have just seen from some of the last votes on amendments, it is clear that there is more work to do to build consensus across the Parliament in support of the language. I am glad, though, that my amendments to include provisions on more education resources and on extending the Scots language strategy to more public bodies were at least agreed to by majority.”
“If the cabinet secretary could confirm that that will be addressed in the statutory guidance—that the community plan should form part of the council's overall Gaelic language plan, even though the council itself is not leading on that community plan—that would probably be sufficient for me not to move amendment 65.”
“The alternative way to achieve that would be for ministers to set out clearly in the statutory guidance that the council’s Gaelic language plan must include specific provisions for each area of linguistic significance within its geographical remit—that is, the community plans, as set out in the provision that I mentioned, should effectively form part of the council’s overall Gaelic language plan, even though those community plans would not originate from the council. My concern relates to the lack of a sufficient connection between the council-wide Gaelic language plan and the community plans for each area of linguistic significance, which, as I said, would not be produced by the council but would be produced by the bòrd—in consultation, one would hope, with the council and, of course, with the local community.”
“Feasgar math. Amendment 65 would require local authorities to develop local Gaelic plans for the designated areas of linguistic significance, in consultation with the community, Bòrd na Gàidhlig and other stakeholders. That is somewhat equivalent to the provision that requires the bòrd to lead on the preparation of a community Gaelic language plan. The amendment arises from concerns that the bòrd is not democratically accountable to local authorities and that the link between the local plan that it would produce for the ALS and the council- wide Gaelic language plan is not clear or strong enough. Currently, the local plan must have regard to the council-wide Gaelic language plan, but not the other way round.”
“Any major development in an area of Scotland that we, as the Parliament, have designated as being of national significance should ultimately be decided on by ministers.”
“There are two reasons why the application should have been recalled and why it is right that ministers have made that decision: it is a significant application in a national park, and it would set a precedent for the whole planning system in the interpretation of NPF4. It is significant precisely because Balloch is the gateway to our national park, and it is not just a local issue—it is a major development, and it was unanimously rejected by the national park’s board. It is unquestionably in the public interest that ministers make the final decision. However, it also points to a wider issue. Any appeal on a major development within our national parks should go straight to ministers—it should not go through a reporter.”
“I thank everyone who has proved the doubters wrong and who has spent the past three weeks campaigning relentlessly to put pressure on the Government and to force the recall decision. It was a community campaign, but it went national. For the 2019 Flamingo Land application, we lodged 60,000 objections. For the 2024 application, we lodged 155,000 objections. In the past three weeks alone, more than 51,000 people have emailed the planning minister, demanding that he recall the application. That demonstrates the strength of feeling not just in the local community, but across Scotland. We have all fought so hard for that because we know how special Loch Lomond is. It is world famous for a reason, and Balloch is the gateway to the loch, so I am genuinely glad that ministers have listened.”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Can we have Mr Greer’s microphone on, please? Ross Greer: I hear that this desk is not working, Deputy Presiding Officer. If you give me a second, I will move. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We have a little bit of time in hand, so I can give you the time back. Ross Greer: I will try again. Grand. I thank Jackie Baillie for giving us the opportunity to have this debate and for forcing the move to recall this afternoon. For a decade, now, many of us have been involved in the campaign to save Loch Lomond from Flamingo Land, and we had won at every step of the way until three weeks ago, when the reporter made the recommendation that the application should go ahead. At that point, we were told that it was over.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I believe that my vote has been cast as a no vote. However, it appears that my vote on behalf of Gillian Mackay has not. Could I check whether her vote has been registered? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Gillian Mackay’s vote has not been registered, but I will register it as a no. Thank you, Mr Greer. I call Clare Adamson to make a point of order. Try again,”
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its work to support faith and belief communities, what plans it has to join the Buddhist community in Scotland in celebrating the 90th birthday of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on 6 July. (S6O-04691)”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether the Scottish ministers will call in appeal PPA-002-2021 on the Flamingo Land Lomond Banks resort development. (S6T-02531)”
“The first set of national standards on secure transport will be prepared, published and laid in Parliament within one year of those regulations coming into force. The regulations will come into force in September 2025, so the secure transport standards will be laid in Parliament by September 2026. A working group has been set up to consider the development of those standards. As I say, I will be writing to Mr Greer, and if there is anything else that he would like me to include in that communication, I am more than happy to do that.”
“When the minister gave her previous statement, I asked whether she could provide an update on the development of regulations on secure transport provision for children in secure care. We included that in the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill because of evidence of the totally inappropriate use of restraints such as handcuffs. At that point, the minister said that she would write to me with an update. I am happy to correct the record if I have got this wrong, but I do not believe that I have received that. Will she provide that update at this point? Natalie Don-Innes: Absolutely. Mr Greer is correct—he has not yet received that update. I will be writing to him shortly with more details. I can confirm that we laid the commencement regulations on 24 April to set that in motion.”
“Those latter areas are not the only parts of the country where such housing now represents a majority of the whole of the local housing sector. That cannot be right. It drives up prices and reduces availability.”
“One of the most important issues is that there are simply not enough affordable and available homes. However, there is little point in building more, particularly in the worst-affected communities, if those homes will not be available to those who need somewhere to live. In many areas, desperately needed houses are being bought and used as holiday homes or short-term lets. Across Scotland, about 1 per cent of all homes are second homes. However, in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, the figure is 5 per cent; in the Cairngorms, it is 12 per cent, rising to about 20 per cent in towns such as Braemar; in Lochranza on Arran it is 40 per cent; and in parts of Wester Ross, every second home is a holiday home or a holiday let.”
“She told the BBC: “Calling it a housing emergency and not doing anything about it isn't helping anyone.” Late last year, 10,000 children were in temporary accommodation in Scotland. As of this spring, more children were in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh than in all of Wales. The crisis has no single cause. Sky-high rents, which are far outstripping wage growth, have made renting simply unaffordable for many people, particularly in the private rented sector. A lack of rights for tenants and poor enforcement against dodgy landlords have resulted in exploitation. The Housing (Scotland) Bill, which was drafted by my Green colleague Patrick Harvie, will significantly improve that. If Parliament passes it, the bill will deliver rent controls and more rights for tenants. It will make it harder to evict tenants, which is absolutely key.”
“I thank all the members who signed my motion, giving us the opportunity to discuss the issue today, particularly those whom, admittedly, I harassed to make sure that I received the support of three different parties. We have entered a new era in which members’ business debates require the support of three parties rather than two due to the recent changes in the composition of the Parliamentary Bureau, so I am grateful to those whom I chased around corridors to make sure that they had seen my motion for signing it. It was exactly a year ago today that the Parliament declared a housing emergency in Scotland. Laura, who is married and has four children aged four, five, 13 and 17, spoke to the BBC today, a year on from that declaration. Her family became homeless in June 2021 after being evicted by their landlord from a privately rented home.”
“Every action in that plan is laudable and would be useful, but none of it will transform what is a catastrophic situation for many of the most vulnerable children in our schools— children whose needs are not being met—and for the wider school community, especially their parents and carers. The debate is an opportunity for us to talk again about the required solutions to this problem. We have spent at least the past decade going over the same ground about what the problems are. I would really like to hear from the Government in particular this afternoon about the new actions that it will take to tackle the crisis in our schools. 15:48”
“Children who would previously have qualified for a co-ordinated support plan no longer do so, because of an improvement that we made in another area of support. That cannot be right. I do not think that the solution is to update the primary legislation; the solution is to take the criteria for co-ordinated support plans out of primary legislation and put them into regulations, which the Government and Parliament would be able to update with far greater ease than has been possible for the relevant legislation over the past two decades. I say to the Government, which I am sure will mention in closing the “Additional Support for Learning: Action Plan”, that it should ask itself whether, if every action in that plan is implemented and implemented well, it will shift the dial. None of us believes that it will.”
“The world has moved on since 2004, as has our understanding of additional support needs. As it stands, co-ordinated support plans are the only statutory plan available for a child with additional needs, whereby if there is a failure to support the child, they and the adults in their life have the opportunity of going to a tribunal to seek redress. However, to receive a co-ordinated support plan, a child must receive support from at least two different sources. The Parliament has already taken evidence on the challenges with that. One area in which we have made progress recently is to get educational psychologists and counsellors back into our schools. However, because they are now based in the school, that no longer counts as a separate stream of support for the child.”
“I accept that there are financial and resource challenges, which are the greatest barrier to success in supporting children with additional needs. However, that is not an insurmountable barrier. I gently encourage colleagues to speak to their party colleagues on the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, which is about to consider my amendments to address some of the issues around local government financing that are relevant to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Alongside resourcing, we need to look at policy and legislative solutions. That is why the Green amendment, which was not selected today, pointed to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. That is a clear example of an area in which legislation needs to change.”
“I have sympathy for local authorities and I understand the resource pressures that they are under, but it cannot be right that the system relies on failure before action is taken to support a child whose needs are known and understood in advance. I am glad that the motion calls for a review, but such a review cannot just repeat what we already know; it needs to build on the Morgan review, the co-ordinated support plan review, the Audit Scotland paper that Miles Briggs mentioned and multiple committee inquiries. It must focus on the actions and solutions that are required to address the implementation gap in the presumption of mainstreaming. There is no need for it to repeat the issues that we are already aware of.”
“I thank Miles Briggs for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue today. I should start by making absolutely clear the Scottish Green Party’s support for the principle of mainstreaming and that we reject any attempt to undo that. However, mainstreaming without adequate resourcing just sets up failure. It sets up something worse than failure, actually. We have children in our schools who are being traumatised by being mainstreamed without adequate resources and support to meet their needs. One of the comments that we hear most often from parents and carers, teachers and support staff is that there needs to be a catastrophic failure for a child before the right support is put in place. Children need to be traumatised before the local authority allocates adequate resources to them.”
“People are suffering terrible deaths, which traumatise those they leave behind. Some are taking their own lives, often in horrific ways and out of desperation. Those who are wealthy enough are able to travel to a country where they can access an assisted death, but it is often earlier than they would otherwise want it to be, and dying far from home is another form of indignity. They all deserve better than that. I do not yet know whether the bill will be better for society at large or for our most vulnerable in particular, but I want to try, and I think that we need to try. 18:35”
“However, when people from a minority or a marginalised group tell us that something would make their lives worse or would actively endanger them, public opinion is not a counter-argument. We do not need to look back far in our history to find public opinion firmly in favour of unjust and harmful laws. I am not voting for the bill at stage 1 because the majority of my constituents want me to; I am doing so because I believe that the circumstances of our deaths should be as safe and compassionate as possible. I am not yet convinced that the bill would establish a safe and compassionate system of assisted dying, but, with further scrutiny and amendment, it might. The reality right now, as shown by the experiences that have been shared today, is not safe or compassionate.”
“It is not exactly the same, but the debate has put me in mind of people I have seen who should have been taken into the care of the state under the Mental Health Act 1983, but who were not. In those situations, resources—availability of beds and staff—clearly influenced the decisions of medical professionals. Dr Lucas and Dr Winnington have also proposed an independent advocate role. That should be seriously considered. Non-clinical support would provide a hugely valuable and important safeguard. My final point is on public opinion. It is right that we give public opinion serious weight, and it has certainly shifted—there is a clear majority of people in favour of the principle of assisted dying.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy rightly pointed out the systemic coercion that exists. It is extremely difficult for a medical professional to make judgments about whether their patient is being coerced. I want the highest degree of training for those who make that decision, which would be more than is realistic for GPs, who are already under huge pressure in their existing roles. I also recognise the sensitive topic of many disabled people’s poor, and sometimes discriminatory, experience of general practice. Resource pressures can also affect professional judgment. Having specialist services would not prevent resource and workload pressures from affecting decisions, but it would better insulate decisions from such pressures.”
“Coercion is— rightly—not defined in the bill; I accept that to do so would create a checklist approach, which could be too narrow and worse than what is currently there. I agree with the recommendation of Dr Sandra Lucas and Dr Rhona Winnington from the University of the West of Scotland that the bill could be amended to specify that a robust training strategy is required. I am also minded to believe that guidance on identifying coercion should be put on a statutory footing. My deeper concern about coercion is rooted in the fact that the proposed assisted dying service would be a dispersed, rather than a specialist, service. I agree with the BMA that it should be a specialist service. Usefully, Edward Mountain defined types of coercion: active coercion, passive coercion and state coercion.”
“My reluctance and hesitation are not based on my faith. Easing suffering is entirely compatible with my Christian belief. However, as a person of faith, I have often found it difficult to engage in the debate, because some advocates of change have given the clear impression that they think that people of faith should not be heard on the issue and that our opinions and underlying moral codes are less legitimate. I hope that the Parliament rejects that and ensures that all voices continue to be heard in the discussion. I will use my time to lay out some of my concerns about whether the bill meets the criteria of being safe and compassionate. Others have laid out the issues with what is a relatively broad definition of terminal illness—I share those concerns. My main area of worry is about the safeguards against coercion.”
“We see that in the horrendous deaths that are unwillingly endured across this country every day. For that reason, I will vote for the bill at stage 1—not because I support it as it is currently drafted, but because it is the Parliament’s job to wrestle with the most difficult issues that face our society, and I believe that there are none more difficult than this. The issue deserves the opportunity for more detailed scrutiny and for changes to be proposed at stages 2 and 3. Those changes might address my concerns; if they do not, I will vote against the bill at the final stage. I appreciate the many constituents who have shared with me the most traumatic experiences of their lives. I have a huge amount of respect for Liam McArthur and the campaigners who have brought the bill to this stage.”
“I was not planning to speak in the debate, but I am grateful to have the opportunity to do so. This is an issue that I, like many members, have wrestled with for many years. I thank Lord Alf Dubs, Linda Fabiani and the much-missed Christina McKelvie for the formative conversations that I have had with them, which have led me to the vote that I will cast today. The Green MSPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to support a “safe and compassionate” system for assisted dying. To me, that sets two clear tests: is the proposal safe and is it compassionate? Even now, I still ask myself whether any system for assisted dying can be safe and compassionate—that is a question that we should still be asking at this stage. However, the status quo is neither safe nor compassionate.”
“It is a day for us to remember those who were lost, to celebrate the freedom that their sacrifice won and to recommit to the fight against rising fascism today and the fight for freedom here and now. 16:34”
“It was years before we fully understood the scale of the Holocaust in particular—the attempted extermination of Jews, disabled people, LGBT people, the Gypsy Roma Traveller community and other so-called undesirables. When we learned of that, we said, “Never again.” The United Nations and the European Union were established on that commitment to peace, but attempted extermination has happened again across the world. It is happening now in Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestine. We also have a war of aggression in Europe that is being fought against free and democratic Ukraine by Putin’s fascistic Russian regime. Douglas Ross recognised the tension today between reflecting on evil and the suffering that it caused, and the joy at its defeat. Today is a day for both of those.”
“The First Minister mentioned the contrast between the loss and the joy that were felt by so many families, and Patrick Harvie mentioned that, for entire nations, that joy was short lived because the iron curtain then fell. I add to that the experience of the Spanish exile community here in Scotland and across Europe. Nazism was defeated in 1945, but it would take 30 more years before fascism was defeated in Europe, with its end in Spain. I also want to remember the Scots who volunteered to fight against fascism in Spain before we were forced to do so against Nazi Germany. Nazism was defeated only through unimaginable sacrifice by our armed forces, our allies and resistance movements across the continent.”
“I will never forget what my gran told me about surviving the Clydebank blitz—how the children were taken to the bottom of the tenement close, how every adult left to fight the fires and how every window was shattered. There was an inescapable orange glow because everything was on fire. In that whole community, just 12 buildings were left undamaged at the end of that 48 hours. My church was hit—the building took a direct hit from an incendiary and was destroyed. It is so hard to imagine now—bombs falling on Clydebank. What an incredible privilege it is to live in Scotland in this era, when that kind of conflict here is unfathomable.”
“Eighty years ago today, after monumental sacrifice and suffering, Nazi Germany was forced into unconditional surrender. However, that was not the end of the fighting in Europe. The battle of Slivice did not end until 12 May and the battle of Odžak in Bosnia did not end until 25 May. Across Europe, for weeks after VE day, people still fought and died in the struggle against the remnants of Nazism. Today, we remember them as well. As the First Minister said, there were three more months of suffering in Asia before Japan was defeated. Nonetheless, the greatest moment in the history of Europe was the absolute defeat of the Nazi empire on 8 May 1945. It is now more important than ever to remember that, given, as Jackie Dunbar highlighted, that experience is fading from living memory.”
“I am glad that the statement had a focus on gender- based violence. It is essential that we talk with boys and young men about the importance of consent in relationships. The new version of the sex and relationship education guidance for teachers, which the cabinet secretary and I were involved in drafting, does that, but its publication has been delayed again. Will that be published in time for schools returning in August? Jenny Gilruth: It is my expectation that there will be an update. I am more than happy to write to the member or to meet him to talk about that point. I recognise some of the challenge in the matter and his specific interest in it.”
“There are issues for us to work out in the bill process, but, if the Government has an alternative to the bill—it has had three years to bring it forward—it has not said so. On that basis, the Greens are content to support the general principles of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. 16:09”
“We all agree on the benefits of outdoor education and of residential education, but is it acceptable that, at the moment, as Miles Briggs highlighted, some young people in some local authority areas will definitely get those opportunities but others in other parts of the country will not? That comes back to the question of the level at which Scottish education should be governed. To what extent should it be delivered nationally and to what extent should it be delivered by local authorities? In this case, there should be a consistent approach. There is such a consensus around the benefits of the opportunity that it is only right that we make sure that every young person in Scotland gets it.”
“One thing that we need to reflect on, in this Parliament, is that we have spent a quarter of a century legislating for additional rights and entitlements for people in Scotland but, in many cases, we have legislated for rights that we knew fine well we were not in a position to deliver, particularly for our children and young people, and particularly for those with additional support needs. This is an opportunity for us to reflect on that approach. My support for the bill is not unequivocal. Of course, there are challenges, but I support it at this stage, and I hope that I will be able to support it at stage 3. We need to ask ourselves what the alternative is.”
“Ross Greer: Yes, if it is brief, if Mr Whittle does not mind. Brian Whittle: Ross Greer highlights one of the Government’s issues with this, which is that it is difficult to quantify what we do not spend. It is difficult to link outdoor activity to the actual savings that we make further down the line. The Government needs to take a leap of faith here. Ross Greer: I am grateful for that intervention, and I absolutely agree, but I would say to the Scottish Government that we could quantify, to some extent, and recognise the skills that young people build up through these experiences by delivering on the recommendations of Professor Hayward, particularly those around a Scottish diploma, project learning and the personal pathway. That would give us the opportunity to recognise those skills more formally.”