Michelle Thomson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We cannot lose sight of the human stories behind that—there has been not just uncertainty but financial worry and a loss of confidence in what should be their safest space: their home.”
“Even though section 104 orders are commonplace, like others, I remain unconvinced by the UK Government’s reasoning. It is a sober reminder that power devolved is power retained. I caution those who believe that, should the bill pass, the choice that they hope for will be immediately and seamlessly available.”
“Willie Rennie: I understand some of the changes that have been made, and I welcome some of the ones that have been introduced, but the issue is still incredibly sensitive. We do not yet have the investment that the changes are designed to bring. That is why acting carefully must be the first priority.”
“To that end, I thank the minister for the Government’s acceptance of my amendment 15. First-time buyers already face significant barriers, and it would have been unfair for the levy to have created further obstacles. I am grateful to colleagues and the minister for ensuring that fairness is at the centre of the legislation.”
“On the other side, we are reminded by philosophers such as Marcus Düwell that “in the concept of human dignity questions about the role of humanity, the rights of individuals, and the structure of our normative social and political orders are interconnected.” In essence, we confront a profound fault line between two fundamental considerat…”
“I will start my short remarks by popping in the intervention that I hoped to make on Willie Rennie. I hope that he will join me in my calls for an adjustment to the fiscal framework to remove the ridiculous limits on the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers, because that is a fundamental aspect of being able to improve our infra…”
The complete record
Every one of 425 lines we hold for Michelle Thomson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Until 17:05 this evening, I had not had a response. The very late response that I received makes an apology, which I fully accept. However, it claims that I voted yes. Presiding Officer, that is categorically not true. I was unable to access the app. I want to make it clear that I have been known— it is fair to say this—to break my party whip, but I hope that all members know that, should I do so, I will fully own that fact and be entirely honest with them. I fear that this situation has called my integrity into question, which is why I am raising this point of order. I am also concerned that this could happen to any member and that, where a vote is on a knife edge, which this one was not, it could have a material impact on our democracy. Presiding Officer, I ask that the relevant authorities look into the matter with urgency.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You will be aware that I wrote to you to advise you of this point of order at 16:49. I appreciate that that was short notice. The issue at hand concerns the vote on the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill at decision time on Tuesday this week. Members who were here will recall that I appeared on screen at 18:35:26 to advise that my app had frozen my phone, and I raised a point of order to advise that I wished to vote no on the bill. Having listened back, I note that my voice was loud and clear, and you advised that my vote would be recorded. I was then surprised to be approached by the SNP whip to be asked why I had voted yes. I explained the position and confirmed my actions, and I wrote to the Presiding Officer mailbox at 21:22 the same day, setting out the position.”
“My personal judgment is that adding the public administration remit to that of the finance committee has been a great success and should continue. The cost- effectiveness of public inquiries, along with their transparency and governance, are vital, so I consider it imperative that that should happen. 15:09”
“Let us be clear: some law firms have made millions and millions of pounds from the public purse and we do not know about that. That cannot be acceptable. In recommendation 223, “we ask that public inquiries record and publish costs in a consistent manner” and that those costs are itemised. I am sorry for not having expended your generosity, Presiding Officer, as I now come to my final comment. The point is important because I am aware that the Deputy First Minister will not be in her current role after this session—indeed nor will I, nor Liz Smith, while the future for many other members remains to be seen. Recommendation 278 “asks the Parliament to consider adding oversight of public inquiries to an existing parliamentary committee’s remit”. I consider that to be important.”
“I consider it to be absolutely fair that budget lines are phased and are signed off throughout a public inquiry. However, during our inquiry, several of us commented on the fact that there is no other area of public life where there seem to be unlimited budgets and no cost control. That is absolutely outrageous. I am sympathetic to what lawyers say about following the evidence, and it is correct to do that, but it seems to me that we have thrown up our hands and said that it is too difficult and that we do not want to upset some lawyers by introducing controls. There is no other walk of life where we would accept that. Budgets are utterly fundamental and I have been heartened by what the Deputy First Minister said. We must also be able to publish costs.”
“Recommendation 82 says that “statements to Parliament announcing the setting up of a public inquiry should fully explain Ministers’ decisions and the reasoning for launching a public inquiry” but I did not feel that we got to that point yesterday, although my colleague John Mason asked some questions about it. We absolutely need to see that explanation and I hope that the Deputy First Minister will not mind my expressing disappointment that, in the face of our report, that did not happen yesterday, when doing so would have shown rapid change. I do not know how much time I have left. The Deputy Presiding Officer: My generosity is not yet close to being exhausted. Michelle Thomson: There we go. Let the excitement commence! We also talked a lot about budgets.”
“Kate Forbes: I was going to make this point at the end, but in response to Martin Whitfield and Michelle Thomson, I will say that we will come back to the committee before the pre-election period to indicate how we will strengthen that. Michelle Thomson: It is heartening to hear that, with regard to not only conflicts of interest but our additional comment about declaring personal or professional relationships. That is utterly fundamental because it speaks to the issue of trust, which was a recurring theme throughout the inquiry. Our point about transparency is related to that.”
“My first comment is that we set out clearly the scope of our inquiry and said that we would not comment on the relative merits of individual public inquiries. That seemed to be misunderstood and I felt that there were, at times, attempts to deflect legitimate parliamentary criticism. We cannot accept that. We had a job to do and I believe that we fulfilled it in good faith. My next comment is about conflicts of interest. I strongly agree with the comment that it cannot be good enough just to refer to the ministerial code and to say that ministers should follow that when we have clear evidence that the code has been breached. Something more must be done, because, if nothing is done, it is a zero-sum game for us all.”
“I am not going to touch my laptop, because it has gone into what I would describe as a technical fankle. I am just going to play it safe. I start by noting how valuable I considered the inquiry to be. Indeed, I contend that it was one of the most valuable inquiries in this parliamentary session. Its incredible importance is backed up by the number of members who are in the chamber today, because it talks to who we are as an institution. We have already had some excellent comments about the need for inquiries to occur in the public realm and how we choose to deal with them. I will go on to make comments about the cost- effectiveness of public inquiries, which is the title of the debate, and we have heard some interesting reflections on how important they are to our public realm. It is a dry topic for some, but certainly not for me.”
“I wanted to begin my remarks, but my laptop has just flipped to show something else entirely. Please give me a second, Presiding Officer. Martin Whitfield: Will the member take an intervention? Michelle Thomson: I would be very happy to do so. Martin Whitfield: I refer back to the member’s intervention on me about the length of public inquiries and the learning opportunities that go by the wayside. Does she agree that the use of interim reports, as we have seen in a number of significant inquiries— Liz Smith: Will the member take an intervention? Martin Whitfield: I am not sure that I can take an intervention in an intervention. Does Michelle Thomson feel that one of the roles of interim reporting may be to assist with learning? Michelle Thomson: Absolutely, and I thank Mr Whitfield for his kind intervention.”
“Although inquiry independence prevents us from reporting on performance, I accept the need for clearer reporting on expenditure, as Michelle Thomson just outlined, and on progress in implementing any recommendations from a public inquiry. In response to Michelle Thomson and the committee, I say that we will explore more options for a public-facing resource that outlines what the costs are. That will be subject to some of the sensitivities, but we will set that out. That was my speech, given at record speed, Presiding Officer. I hope that that indicates that we are open, transparent and accessible to the scrutiny of the Parliament. The Deputy Presiding Officer: It also confirmed that your interpretation of generosity was closer to matching mine than Mr Gibson’s was. With that, I call Liz Smith to speak for around six minutes. 14:47”
“Interim reports can be invaluable—those in the Scottish child abuse inquiry have certainly been invaluable—instead of waiting until the final module for the full report. We will come back to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on any other ways in which we can strengthen the point around timescales, because I can see the argument on that. There was a recommendation to establish a central public inquiries unit. That requires careful consideration, given the unpredictable nature of inquiry work, but we will consider where we can streamline to a greater extent the support from across Government that is given to inquiries. Public accountability in this area is essential.”
“On the appointment of chairs, we are very open to candidates who come from both judicial and non-judicial backgrounds. I note that we have already discussed the comments on reporting timescales. We think that it is absolutely right that, on some occasions, there should be a clearer approach to requiring explicit anticipated timescales. Where the terms of reference are set, it is up to the chair to consider how an inquiry fulfils its terms of reference. There is a balance in ensuring that the inquiry chair is free to follow the evidence wherever it leads; where a timescale has been indicated and the chair then feels that they do not need to use the full amount of time, or that they need to extend it, a discussion with ministers is needed.”
“The committee called for information to be made clear and accessible to the public. That is absolutely right, especially when it comes to managing public expectations around the purpose of inquiries. Some of the committee’s recommendations are very easy to accept, such as having a dedicated web page that brings together published information on public inquiries and on conflicts of interest. Ministers and civil servants must comply with existing codes of conduct, but we will review the guidance to ensure that risks are clearly identified and well managed. I agree that ministerial statements establishing a public inquiry should set out the rationale clearly, and I can confirm that any relevant ministerial interest will be declared.”
“My officials have provided me with other examples in which ministers have sought to specify, in an inquiry’s terms of reference, a fixed date by which it must report, but then the time limit has then had to be extended, as happened with the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry. We are conscious that that can be done currently. The legislative basis on which the system is founded is the Inquiries Act 2005, which is intended to provide a comprehensive statutory framework for inquiries to be set up. As the committee notes, that is a UK-wide act, which confers powers not only on the Scottish ministers but on their UK, Northern Irish and Welsh counterparts. If it is considered necessary or desirable, the Scottish Parliament can legislate to amend the current statutory framework for public inquiries on devolved matters in Scotland.”
“Few among us would not be horrified by what has been uncovered in that regard. Kenneth Gibson: I thank the minister for taking a record number of interventions, but one of the points that the committee has made is that the Government can set an initial budget and timescale and, if necessary, can always come back to the Parliament to explain why additional funding or a longer timescale is required. Would that not be a better methodology than letting the inquiry last as long as it wants and letting it cost as much as it wants to spend? Kate Forbes: The example that I gave of the Scottish child abuse inquiry entirely meets those criteria. Members might recall that there was a relatively fixed timescale at the outset, which was then extended.”
“Kenneth Gibson: My understanding is that, for some three years, the English inquiry has been focused for on completing its findings and that it has a £65 million budget. It is dipping its toe in the water of timescale and budget limitations. We should surely do the same. Kate Forbes: I will come to the committee’s recommendations, because I am aware of the committee’s call on that time-limited aspect. There are good examples that demonstrate that that is not always the best idea, such as the one that I provided in committee: I absolutely support the fact that the Scottish child abuse inquiry has taken longer than three years. When it was first established, it probably did not envisage the scale of the evidence that would come forward. It was vital that the inquiry was allowed to run its course and to take all the evidence that it did.”
“That is fair, but it also bears repeating that the Parliament should take responsibility, on all budget matters, for what it calls for and how that is to be funded. I am probably out of time, having not really commenced my speech at all— Kenneth Gibson: Will the minister take an intervention? Kate Forbes: I hate to let the convener down, but I probably need to make some progress. I will do that first, and then if the Presiding Officer is feeling generous— The Deputy Presiding Officer: I reassure you, Deputy First Minister, that we have adequate time in hand, so you can take another intervention, if you are so minded. Kate Forbes: In that case, I would love to take another intervention from the convener.”
“If the Government will not look at the sponsor framework arrangement, will it perhaps look at a specific budget line for Police Scotland to be able to deal with the significant costs of dealing with public inquiries? Kate Forbes: Those issues certainly need to be taken into account in the annual budget debates, and there should also be a recognition of the costs that the police face. It is worth repeating what I said at committee: for the past few months, the Parliament has been relatively united in pushing the Government to hold another public inquiry. When I put that to the committee, Michael Marra said that it is ultimately for the Government to take responsibility for the decisions that it makes.”
“There will be some areas that are more sensitive than others in that regard, which is why, in our response, we identified that point. However, my commitment is to look at where we can go further on transparency, even if some areas are slightly more complex than others. Would Craig Hoy still like to make an intervention? Craig Hoy: The minister had moved on from it slightly, but I will go back to the issue of costs, and specifically to the case that we heard about from the Scottish Police Federation. The new public inquiry that was announced yesterday will put additional strain on police resources. Does the minister accept that the police perhaps have a special case to plead, because they seem to be drawn into almost all public inquiries?”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Kate Forbes: Why not? I will give way to Michelle Thomson. Michelle Thomson: I think that I just beat Craig Hoy to it in making an intervention. John Mason has made a valid comment. In addition to having a tightly drawn scope, which I think is what she is alluding to, would the Deputy First Minister be prepared to take on some of our other recommendations, principally on the publication of all costs and moneys paid to individual lawyers, so that the public can see how much money they are making from these inquiries? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Deputy First Minister, I can give you the time back. Kate Forbes: I have some sympathy with the point about maximum transparency in the publication of costs.”
“To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of warnings from industry leaders that high transmission charges are making wind farms in the north of Scotland uncompetitive, including any implications for its work to grow the renewable energy sector. (S6F- 04717)”
“Motion disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: For clarity, I note that the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill is therefore not passed.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: I can confirm that your vote, too, has been recorded, Ms Thomson. For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-20904, in the name of Graham Simpson, on the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill at stage 3, is: For 30, Against 66, Abstentions 27.”
“I am pleased to note that the commission is continuing to broaden its analysis and improve data quality, and I thank the commission for that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Given earlier remarks, it is perhaps worth reminding the chamber at this point that the timing of the debate was agreed at the Parliamentary Bureau and was subsequently agreed to by Parliament. I do not recall there being an amendment to the business programme. I can also tell the chamber that there is a little bit of time in hand, so recompense for interventions will be given for the foreseeable. How long that will last, I do not know. 16:09”
“I have been consistent in calling for those funds to be used for long-term investment. Therefore, there needs to be—and I think that Mr McKee will have a view on this—an even stronger focus on public sector reform and on setting clear priorities. On that point, too often cries from Opposition parties to increase spending across many areas of Government are not accompanied by explanations of where that money is to come from—witness Craig Hoy’s remarks earlier. Frankly, that reveals that they are not ready for the challenges of Government. As this is my last budget speech, I want to finish by recognising the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission under the leadership of Professor Graeme Roy. Its analysis is critical for us all in supporting evaluation and evidence-based decision making. It does a super job.”
“This is the context in which the Scottish Government has had to produce a draft budget in short order without knowing precisely what funding it will have to operate with as we still await clarification on consequentials. I will dwell for a short time on two criticisms that I have previously shared regarding the constraints of the fiscal framework. First, I have said consistently that restricted borrowing powers limit the Scottish Government’s ability to respond to in- year inflation, pay pressures and unseen events. The framework also constrains our ability to borrow to invest, which is fundamental in addressing productivity challenges. Secondly, I continue to be concerned that the challenging context has led to a reliance on one- off funds—most noticeably, ScotWind money being called on to fund day-to-day spending.”
“[Interruption.] Mr Marra may wish to heckle from a sedentary position, but he can intervene if he wants to and tell us why the Labour Party could not be bothered and, in fact, sought to abstain on the budget even before it was brought forward. Is he able to give me the compelling reason for doing that? Michael Marra: I certainly am. Over four meetings, we set out a range of areas in which we wanted to see investment. I was told that I would hear back on that, but we heard nothing. As I have said already, it takes two to dance. Michelle Thomson: Och, he is a wee lamb, is he not? For goodness’ sake: the fact of the matter is that the Scottish Labour leadership appears to knife its own Prime Minister in the back, but it fails at every single turn to put the interests of the Scottish people first.”
“That confirms what I have argued since its election. Although the UK Government holds most of the levers that are needed to create a coherent growth strategy—control of the tax regime and of key regulators, borrowing-to-invest powers and, of course, overall fiscal and economic powers—it has failed to use them. Here in Scotland, we have been captured within the chaos and failure of successive UK Governments’ making. Within those challenges, we face the massive challenge of a fixed budget. It is therefore disappointing that, yet again, the Labour Party in Scotland refused to bring any proposals forward during budget negotiations and backed an abstentionist position.”
“First, I note that I am disappointed at the length of the debate. The budget is absolutely at the heart of any Government activity. For it to be conducted on a Thursday afternoon in what some people consider the graveyard slot, and with such restricted time, is not good enough. I therefore apologise in advance to all members that I will not be able to take any interventions due to time, although they are absolutely the point of the debate. On that note, what a week! Whoever promised Anas Sarwar that he would live in interesting times was not wrong. The release of the WhatsApp messages on Monday this week between Anas Sarwar’s old friend Peter Mandelson and Wes Streeting told us a lot of things. Notable, of course, is Streeting’s explicit criticism of his own Labour Government for having “no growth strategy”.”
“To ask the First Minister how often he or the Scottish ministers engage with the Scottish Government’s Washington DC international office regarding the Scotch whisky industry and other economic interests in the United States. (S6F-04672)”
“For example, the report records that some committee members attended an informal meeting facilitated by Scotland for Decrim, which enabled members’ direct engagement with those participants. However, no equivalent access was afforded to the Women’s Support Project or A Model for Scotland. Jamie Hepburn: Will Michelle Thomson take an intervention? Michelle Thomson: No, I will not. I have taken one already. That is a textbook example of two types of bias: confirmation bias and motivational bias. Audrey Nicoll: Will Michelle Thomson take an intervention? Michelle Thomson: I will finish this section first. That is a deadly combination. When evidence is filtered through bias, the resulting recommendations cannot command the confidence of”
“I am not sure whether Michelle Thomson is aware of this, but the member in charge of the bill did not consult women who are currently working in the sex trade; she consulted people who had exited the trade. When I raised in committee the issue of the serious safety concerns that we had heard about, she said that they were a myth. Do you believe that those safety concerns are a myth? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Michelle Thomson: I am in the process of making an argument specifically about why the committee report has to be tested. I will fold in all that, because I would say that, furthermore, there is clear evidence of bias in both the committee’s report and the Government’s response.”
“I was disappointed in the Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report—not because I simply disagreed with its conclusions but because the committee did not fulfil its fundamental role of scrutinising contested evidence. The Parliament relies on committees to distinguish robust evidence from ideology and self-interest and to discriminate between the quality and accuracy of submissions, yet the committee report gives them equal weight. As a result, no credible claim can be made that there is evidence that the bill would cause harm to women; there is only the opinion of a small number of self-interested bodies. Rona Mackay rose— Jamie Hepburn rose— Michelle Thomson: I will give way to Rona Mackay. Rona Mackay: Thank you for giving way.”
“If the bill is not to succeed, we set out some views on what should happen next, including the establishment of an independent commission. I note that the Scottish Government’s response to our stage 1 report sets out a commitment to a commission that would identify options for the next Government to consider. If I have time, I will now take interventions. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You are over time now, Ms Nicoll. I now call— Audrey Nicoll: May I just conclude my remarks, Presiding Officer? To conclude, I extend our thanks again to everyone who supported the committee’s scrutiny, and I look forward to hearing members’ contributions.”
“Taking into account all the evidence that we received, some committee members were content to recommend that the bill should progress to stage 2. Others considered that there is insufficient time to undertake the necessary detailed consultation and engagement to properly address the issue of women’s safety and to make other necessary changes. Therefore, they do not consider that the bill should proceed beyond stage 1. However, we are all agreed that prostitution is a form of violence against women and girls, that its prevalence must be reduced and that further action is necessary as a matter of priority. We were all of the view that, if passed at stage 1, significant amendments to the bill will be required to address the concerns that we have identified.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the level of interest in the debate, it is reasonable to assume that everybody in the chamber will have read the stage 1 report — and, with respect to the convener, this is a debate. I therefore do not think that there is any material benefit to taking interventions after all the main points have been made, and so I wonder whether she would reflect on whether she is willing to have a debate. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is not a point of order. Points of order should not be used to make interventions. Audrey Nicoll: I thank Michelle Thomson for her intervention. My position is that it is important that I set out the position of the committee. I am happy to take interventions at the end of my contribution. If I may therefore proceed.”
“It could also be useful to focus on developing cultural links to enjoy and appreciate the different cultural assets. We have much to learn from the intriguing country of Bhutan and I, again, give grateful thanks for the experience that I have gained. 18:30”
“There are multiple areas where a sharing of innovative practice might prove mutually beneficial, such as environmental management, climate change, sustainable tourism, population retention, entrepreneurship and democratic governance. There are opportunities to further develop relationships with Bhutan and I encourage the Loden Foundation to work with friends in Scotland. I strongly believe that, after the elections, active consideration should be given to forming a cross- party group on Bhutan. The membership should come from Scotland and Bhutan and a good starting place could be to include our academic and cultural communities. At that point, I will no longer be a member of the Parliament to take that initiative forward, but I encourage interested members in the next session to do so.”
“The measurement is useful for policy making and policy incentives for Government, non-governmental organisations and businesses of Bhutan and to increase societal wellbeing and happiness. When we were there, it was hard to make an honest assessment of how that was operating in practice and in policy making. We know about that in Scotland, too, with the challenges of our national performance framework. I watch with interest to see how that can be developed and sustained, particularly as Bhutan develops its capital markets and financial sector. I will now reflect on how things might be taken forward to the mutual advantage of both Bhutan and Scotland.”
“Transparency International’s annual corruption perception index ranks 180 countries and territories worldwide by their perceived levels of public sector corruption. The least corrupt country, ranked at number 1, is Denmark. Bhutan comes in at 18, whereas China is ranked at 76 and India at 96. As a matter of interest, the UK is ranked below Bhutan, at 20. I should also add that, as we strive for a future that is carbon neutral, Bhutan is unique in being a carbon-negative country. However, that said, it, too, faces the challenge of climate change, which does not respect borders. Bhutan has become internationally notable for developing its own gross national happiness index.”
“It is a legendary monastery that hangs precariously on the edge of a 3,102m tall cliff. We know that because we climbed it. My experience in Bhutan has persuaded me that to be Bhutanese goes beyond nationality. It embodies a deep connection with nature, and its Buddhist heritage influences everything. I notice, too, the values that are embedded in the national psyche—compassion, consensus, self-reflection and humility, to name a few. That has allowed change to evolve through people rather than happen to people, although key groups, such as women, are still too underrepresented in the Parliament and Government. However, Bhutan is not alone in that. Despite being surrounded by giants, Bhutan has nevertheless carved out its own unique attributes. Take, for example, corruption.”
“It would therefore be wrong and too simplistic to see Bhutan as an untroubled, idyllic place. Like the rest of us, it faces geopolitical challenges. Bhutan is famed for a culture and governance that are very different from Scotland. Since 2008, it has become a constitutional monarchy, with the king as head of state. Executive power is vested in a council of ministers and legislative power in a bicameral Parliament. It was not until 2008 that Bhutan adopted its first modern constitution, which codified the institutions of government and the legal framework for a democratic multiparty system. It is notable for a vibrant Buddhist heritage and magnificent cultural assets, including its numerous fortresses and temples, the best known of which is the Paro Taksang—also known as the tiger’s nest.”
“I welcome Lesley Kennedy from the Tam O’Shanter Trust and Tshering Dorji, a Bhutanese national who is working for the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, who are both sitting in the public gallery. Bhutan is set amid the spectacular Himalayas and is bordered to the south, east and west by India and to the north by Tibet. The Bhutanese are surrounded by the two most populous countries in the world—India, with 1.46 billion people, and China, with 1.42 billion people—while Bhutan has a smaller population; it is approaching 800,000. Bhutan has a close relationship with India but a troubled one with China. China claims that it has rights over Bhutanese territories in three sectors— the north, west and east—and, since 1984, Bhutan and China have had 25 rounds of border talks.”
“It gives me great pleasure to open the debate and formally move the motion on building links with Bhutan. Never in my wildest dreams—nor, I suspect, those of my fellow members of the Scottish Parliament—did I expect to be given the honour of leading colleagues from our Scottish Parliament on such a fascinating visit to Bhutan. Without the financial help, administrative support and leadership of the Tam O’Shanter Trust, the visit would never have happened. In addition, we had excellent support from the Loden Foundation and Bhutan Homestay, which allowed us to meet parliamentarians, entrepreneurs and many others. I thank them all profusely for giving us such a remarkable experience, from which we have learned a great deal. We have much to reflect on as a result.”
“It is perfectly understandable—I suspect that we will do this next—that all parties argue for their spending priorities. However, I think that it was Liz Smith who said in committee that we also need to consider which areas can be deprioritised. Where we move resources from is as important as where we move resources to. If we do not tackle areas for deprioritisation, our landscape will become increasingly cluttered—where have we heard that before?—and we will increasingly call on one-off opportunities such as the revenues from ScotWind to fill revenue gaps instead of investing in the future. 16:37”
“As we go forward, we need a focus on skills needs, particularly in the social care sector as a result of UK Government visa restrictions, as well as digital upskilling and management skills. On the less positive side, some of the devolved taxes act as a barrier to productivity growth, partly due to the limited range of taxes that are under the Scottish Government’s control. For example, the land and buildings transaction tax makes it harder for people to move to get jobs or for businesses to get better premises, which harms productivity growth. I appreciate that the limited flexibility that the Scottish Government is afforded by the few devolved tax powers that it has makes that difficult, but I was pleased to see no further increases this year. I want to raise another issue that is too often ignored.”
“I reiterate—as I have done every year when I have spoken in the budget debate—the importance of productivity growth. I note the comments from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that we need “heroic improvements in productivity”. We know that multiple factors affect productivity, and I will make some brief remarks on two areas are affected by the budget: one in which productivity is constrained, and another that is encouraging productivity. On the positive side, I go back to some remarks that we heard earlier. Increased investment in the college sector and skills is hugely welcome, but I add my voice to the voices of those who have talked about a lack of clarity around that. Is it £70 million or is it £40 million? Nevertheless, it is a critical area for enhancing labour market productivity.”
“We also have to operate within a UK tax system that is hugely complicated—we heard yesterday that there are more than 1,000 tax reliefs—and we have heard much comment in the debate today that we are living with a fiscal framework that is, frankly, not fit for purpose. I do not say that as a political statement. When I listen to what is happening in the process and hear about the additional spend and effort that are required to get to understanding and effective monitoring and measuring of spend, I know that we have a problem. I will make a few remarks on productivity. We know that the recent forecasts have not been encouraging. At the recent UK budget, the OBR downgraded its central forecast of productivity growth to just 1 per cent, and the SFC has downgraded its forecast of trend productivity to 0.9 per cent.”
“I thank Douglas Ross for bringing the debate alive. I will try to keep it up, even though we are now back to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have long laboured the point that we need a sustainable fiscal environment in Scotland, and we have consistently said that we need better-quality data, combined with more transparency from Government. That point came through loud and clear yesterday in our session with the Scottish Fiscal Commission. We also heard evidence that the Scottish Government is operating in an environment in which the lack of consideration from the UK Government meant that the Scottish Government was given little time to incorporate UK budgetary decisions into its process. We are at this point now because of the late UK Government budget.”