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 6 of 9.
“Michelle Thomson: Small and medium-sized enterprises are among the most innovative companies in the energy sector, but often they do not operate at the scale required to access the available finance, such as from the national wealth fund. The Deputy First Minister mentioned the role of Scottish Enterprise so— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Thomson, I need a question, please. Michelle Thomson: —what actions is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that it is given a fair hearing, given the likelihood that it is able to create quality jobs at scale? Kate Forbes: The member is absolutely right to talk about the innovation of SMEs. We now have a system, led by Scottish Enterprise, that triages all inquiries that reach it from SMEs and other companies and investors that want to be part of Grangemouth’s future.”
“The Grangemouth refinery closure means that 430 workers have been made redundant. My thoughts are with every single one of them and their families. They have been let go by Petroineos and let down after Scottish Labour’s pledge that it “would step in and save the jobs”. UK Labour was able to underwrite a loan guarantee for a plant in Antwerp, to step in and save British Steel in Scunthorpe, to nominate sustainable aviation fuel sites anywhere but Scotland and to progress with carbon capture and storage in Teesside and Humberside. Even the local Labour MP concedes that Westminster treats Scotland as an afterthought. We need our Scottish Government to work hard to replace jobs as soon as possible. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Could I have a question, please, Ms Thomson?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what opportunities it has identified to grow Scotland’s economy, following tartan week 2025. (S6O-04578)”
“In the same way that the Scottish Government was not made aware in advance of the issuing of the EHRC’s update, I do not currently know whether it plans to issue other updates before it produces its guidance during the summer. That lack of knowledge about what might or might not happen within the EHRC illustrates exactly the need for us to have clarity as we attempt to move forward at speed.”
“The Supreme Court has clarified the law, which is an absolute when compared with our simply having guidance, whether it be interim or otherwise. Having to wait until the summer to tell public bodies that they must act where they are able to do so seems highly risky, given the absolute clarity contained in the Supreme Court’s 88-page judgment. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the risk of further court actions being initiated in the interim and of the associated cost to the public purse? Shirley-Anne Somerville: As I have said on a number of occasions, across Government, work has already begun on the implementation of the judgment by assessing matters for review of guidance, policy, practice and legislation. That work is exceptionally important. I will give an example of the challenges that the Government faces.”
“I completely agree with the committee’s view that “powers allowing flexibility ‘just in case’ are unlikely to meet the test for the necessity of the power”. I also completely agree with its point that “consultation and ‘co-design’ on a Bill’s provisions should take place” up front. Its last point is that, “as a general rule, a lack of policy development is not an appropriate justification for introducing framework legislation”. I suspect that the minister would want to intervene on that point if I was not running out of time. I am not saying that that is being done, but I am saying that there is the potential for that to occur, and we need to be alive to that. 16:19”
“A point that has been made by a number of members is that, even with good scrutiny up front, we have an issue with secondary legislation when we look at it through a purely financial spend lens against the backdrop of a shortage of public sector money. One key question—I do not know whether this has been mentioned enough—is how on earth we are meant to carry out post-legislative scrutiny, especially from a financial perspective, when we are using a framework bill with absolutely massive ranges, considerable uncertainty and considerable complexity. I do not see how that can be done. We need to own up to that fact and be aware of it. I will finish quickly, because I made a lot of my points during my interventions on everybody.”
“We know that financial memorandums include educated guesses, but the point that I made to Lorna Slater earlier is that range is an important indicator of how tight the scoping of the policy is. Generally speaking, a massive range of costs from X to Y tells us something about how tightly scoped the policy work has been, and that raises a concern. Going back to my point about efficiency and effectiveness, if, under challenge, in front of the committee, the member or the minister is able to clearly articulate the basis of every measure, that gives us confidence. In fairness to all the ministers and members, where they have not been able to do that, that illustrates my concern.”
“The Finance and Public Administration Committee wrote to the Government, asking us to improve and refine our process in relation to financial memorandums and the quality of them, and that is what we have done. That shows the Parliament holding the Government to account. Michelle Thomson: I completely agree. In my further remarks, I was going to pay respect to the Scottish Government for responding to the Finance and Public Administration Committee and addressing our concerns, so I happily agree with that. As someone with considerable experience in assessing business cases, estimates of costs for larger programmes and so on, I am concerned when considering this from a technical perspective.”
“Our committee also made commentary about the quality of some of the financial memorandums for framework bills. I will take the same approach as Stuart McMillan and not name them, for that is not the point. However, it is fair to say that we felt that they were below par when it came to our job of scrutinising them. I might have asked— somewhat tartly—in a committee meeting whether members would commit their own money on the basis of the information provided, as a way of demonstrating that. Jamie Hepburn: Michelle Thomson says that she will not name the specific bills, and I understand why, because it is obviously a general issue. However, does she accept that what she describes is a good example of the scrutiny process?”
“The report notes that the FPA Committee suggested that “co-design processes to finalise exact policy during and beyond the passage of the relevant primary legislation presented significant challenges for effective financial scrutiny.” That is an understatement. Kenneth Gibson MSP, who regrets that he cannot be here today, said: “although we are not particularly keen on them,”— framework bills— “if they are to be used, all the co-design work and stakeholder engagement should be done prior to the bills coming to the committee, so that we can fully analyse the costs.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 21 January 2025; c 4.] I am interested in the minister’s view on the extent to which that can be done—and, if it cannot, why not.”
“Participants in the debate now have the chance to get their own back. I welcome the debate, and I congratulate the DPLR Committee on a detailed, well-evidenced report. I elected to speak in the debate as a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which, it is fair to say, has been vexed about the issues that have arisen from a financial perspective as a result of the use of what I will term “framework bills”. We know that public sector expenditure is considerably constrained. I will not labour the reasons for that, but surely that must mean that there is an imperative for as much efficiency and effectiveness in public spend as possible—we cannot waste public money. However, based on my experience thus far, if we had applied that test to some of the financial memorandums for framework bills, they would have fallen short.”
“As more legislation pushes the detail of implementation into regulations, or policy detail into laid documents, committees will face even greater pressure on their time. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee currently faces such a challenge. We have agreed not to scrutinise two key laid documents this autumn, as we do not have time in our work programme to do so. Such a lack of provision for parliamentary scrutiny and approval risks undermining the fundamental aims and objectives of those policy initiatives, as well as compromising the time that the Parliament and stakeholders can give to scrutinising and approving the framework legislation in the first place. I wrote to the Minister for Parliamentary Business about that on 1 April, and I would appreciate it if he could pick up on that concern in his comments. 15:12”
“I will conclude by making a point that I have raised a number of times, especially in the Conveners Group, about the lack of oversight or co-ordination of regulations or other laid documents. At its heart, the issue is about how Parliament scrutinises—and, thus, legitimises— the Government’s exercise of statutory powers. Such scrutiny is being squeezed or compromised by a lack of time and a lack of control over when business is timetabled. The problem is exacerbated at the end of each session when an unusually high volume of legislation emerges, as is happening at the moment, and it will be further exacerbated in the future as more powers are exercised via regulations or laid documents.”
“Finally, as the DPLR Committee also recommended, there should be a presumption that Scottish ministers must review the effectiveness of regulations or other laid documents made under framework legislation. I will finish my contribution by complimenting the DPLR Committee’s report from the perspective of a subject committee tasked with scrutinising the output of framework legislation. In our submission to the inquiry, we set out the challenges of scrutinising regulations within the 40-day period and called for the accompanying policy notes to set out better financial information. I would have liked to see the challenges that Parliament faces being explored in more detail in the report.”
“We also suggested a lighter-touch scrutiny process at stage 1, as long as it would enable parliamentarians to take a view on the general principles of legislation. There should be a presumption that placing statutory duties on Scottish ministers to produce a plan should be accompanied by a requirement to lay the documents in Parliament for a certain number of days to allow for parliamentary scrutiny. Our committee believes that it would be appropriate for some laid documents to be made subject to parliamentary approval. In this parliamentary session, we have found a wide variation in the requirements for laid documents, and setting out some consistency—or, at least, providing explicit logic to explain those variations—would inform our scrutiny. A commitment to co-design with key stakeholders is also important.”
“However, without having much detail about how the powers will be exercised and how much the legislation will cost the public purse, the Parliament found it very difficult to take a view on the general principles of that framework legislation. So, what solutions did we put forward to the scrutiny challenge? We suggested that there be detailed information about the appropriateness, impact and cost of proposed powers or laid documents in primary legislation and/or accompanying documents. The DPLR Committee also recommended consideration of the wider use of the super-affirmative procedure or other opportunities for enhanced scrutiny for proposed powers and framework bills, although that option should be used carefully.”
“In some instances, particularly with the likes of NatureScot, there are some who believe that, because of guidance, certain legislation goes above and beyond the spirit of what was passed and what was intended by Parliament. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee agrees that there is a place for such legislation, but we need long-term flexibility, too. One example in that respect is the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, which gave ministers powers to provide agricultural support. In order for that support to be fit for purpose over the longer term, we needed flexibility via regulations.”
“I was very interested to hear the definition that the member just gave. Indeed, it probably concurs with the definition that the FPA Committee would have given, had it been asked to give one, because that is what we have seen, too. We are both coming to this with a different steer, because, perhaps, the DPLR Committee’s focus is on the absolutism of standing orders, but I would say that the practical effect, as the member has described it, is the same as we in our committee would describe it. Finlay Carson: In this session, we have found that, in some cases, how guidance or good practice guidelines are set out in secondary legislation is crucial, but often those things do not come under scrutiny.”
“The First Minister: I intend to ensure that the public sector equality duty is met and, as I have made clear to Parliament in all my answers on the subject, we will act within the law. Obviously, the Supreme Court gave legal clarity last week, and the Government must consider the details of that ruling to enable it to be applied in taking forward the public sector equality duty.”
“The public administration section of the Finance and Public Administration Committee recently met the outgoing permanent secretary. It was clear from evidence to the committee that Scottish civil servants are being subjected to internal policies that have not adhered to the public sector equality duty, with women’s networks allowing men to self- identify into membership and policies being developed on private spaces where no input was sought around sex as a protected characteristic. The First Minister has made it clear that considerable work is under way, but will he personally ensure that that work puts women’s voices—as 57 per cent of the Scottish civil service—at the heart of such policies and that the public sector equality duty is met?”
“Fears are being expressed that that might include compromising on domestic standards, particularly for our Scottish food products, for which provenance and quality are our calling card. My fear is that taking the path of appeasement will only embolden Trump. I can see no sign that he is open to calm reasoning. I end by making the obvious point that we need to revisit and revise Scotland’s export strategy in the light of world events, as well as our economic and financial policies. 17:03”
“A fear of rising inflation in the US and the possibility of a global recession are just part of the price that is being paid for Trump’s incompetence. It is not only the large advanced economies that are being hit; poor countries are affected as well. Malawi, for example, has been hit by a 17 per cent baseline tariff by the US. US stocks ended sharply lower overnight after Trump intensified his criticism of the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, raising concerns about the central bank’s independence and unsettling investor confidence. That has further weakened the US dollar, with further overnight declines against most major currencies. What, then, of trade negotiations? Some countries, including the UK, seem to be signalling that they will go down the path of appeasing Trump.”
“At close of play yesterday, the Dow Jones industrial index was trading approximately 6,000 points lower than it was at the end of January, while the relative safety of precious metals such as gold meant that their price was up again. For many, the biggest concern is the less-well- reported impact on the bonds market. The US has introduced a rise in the cost of debt of which Liz Truss would be proud. The cost of debt has risen for the US but also for the UK, which is paying over 4.5 per cent—in the eyes of investors, that is a clear measure of a lack of fiscal resilience. That will ultimately lead to a decrease in public sector spend and Barnett consequentials, or tax rises. That is why this debate is highly relevant for the Scottish Parliament.”
“Their levels are based on dividing the US trade deficit in goods with each country by the value of that country’s imports, then dividing by 2. However, if that formula had been imposed consistently, countries such as Australia, with which the US runs a trade surplus, would be due money back. Instead, the calculation was abandoned for countries that have little or no trade deficit with the US and a 10 per cent tariff was imposed on them. It is a myth that the UK got a better deal because of Keir Starmer cosying up to Donald Trump. The most obvious consequences of the tariffs have been a destabilising of international markets.”
“For the record, I state clearly and openly that I am dismayed by the rise of the far right across the world. History has shown us that, when the far right is strong, it can lead to wars, poverty for many, the removal of rights and the weakening of the judiciary. It seems ironic that, in Scotland today, women have had to battle to reassert their rights and science has been consistently denied. Just at the weekend, we had dangerous commentary about the judiciary, which we should all condemn whole-heartedly. I say that because we cannot afford to be complacent and we need wise heads to prevail. In my short remarks, I want to focus on Trump’s tariffs and their implications. First, it is useful to understand how arbitrary they are.”
“We are now carefully considering the impacts of the Supreme Court ruling on the work that will be undertaken on the misogyny bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs will be able to update Parliament in due course, but I stress once again that it is important that we take time to look at the 88-page judgment from the Supreme Court and give it exceptionally careful consideration, particularly in relation to an issue of such importance as the misogyny bill.”
“Can the cabinet secretary give any indication of when that bill will be introduced—I appreciate that it is under a different portfolio— and, fundamentally, whether it will have women as a sex class at its heart? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Again, I reiterate that there is no excuse for poor, bad or, in particular, criminal behaviour. There is simply no excuse for that, and that is particularly pertinent when we are discussing an issue of such sensitivity and one where, as Alex Cole-Hamilton and others have spoken to, there is real fear from people who have raised their voices. Michelle Thomson is quite right to point to the fact that gender or sex was not part of the hate crime legislation. I know that she is well aware of the work that has been undertaken towards a misogyny bill.”
“I note the conciliatory tone that the cabinet secretary has adopted. I am especially pleased now that women’s voices will, eventually, be listened to. I add to the list, in addition to For Women Scotland, the likes of Sex Matters, Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, which has done such sterling work, LGB Alliance and so on. Many of us noticed at the weekend the really quite shocking and disgusting language being used at some of the debates, including wishes to urinate and defecate on women. It is ironic that sex was not included as a protected characteristic in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, with the promise that there would be a misogyny bill.”
“The suggestion is not serious, it is not credible and, frankly, it is impossible. 17:58”
“In a fine speech, Martin Whitfield also pointed out the positive impact that using the capital headroom that we have created to invest in housing for the long term can have, and said that the budget has resulted in the biggest positive growth impact that the OBR has ever reflected in its forecasts. Overall, the budget in the autumn has resulted in £5.2 billion of additional spending for the Scottish Government to invest in public services in this country. I have to say again to the SNP that being responsible with the public’s money does not mean demanding £70 billion of additional spending and then opposing every revenue-raising measure to enable that. Its latest idea is to change the fiscal rules to try to find a means to obtain more debt without ever recognising the impact that that would have on our interest rates.”
“The challenge that we faced as a Government when we arrived last year was the trilemma of no growth in the economy for 14 years due to the horrific Tory Government; a massive in-year black hole in which the national reserve had been spent three times in the space of the first quarter; and public services that were in crisis. That is the context that Martin Whitfield was talking about, and it was a result of an utterly reckless approach that is similar to that which is being advocated by people in relation to the abandonment of the fiscal rules at this point.”
“Craig Hoy was dismissive of the three interest rate cuts that have taken place under the Labour Government since it came to power. Craig Hoy: Will the member take a brief intervention? Michael Marra: I am afraid that I do not have the time. I gently remind Mr Hoy that rates were at 0.1 per cent in 2020 and that they peaked at 5.25 per cent in August 2023. I wonder what happened in that intervening period. I will tell members what happened: Liz Truss happened, and there was an absolute surge in interest rates. They are now down to 4.5 per cent, which is not as low as we would like them to go—we would like them to go further—but that decrease is the result of having a stable fiscal and economic policy that can deliver for the long term.”
“Rachel Reeves had choices, and Michael Marra seems to be defending the fact that she has made the choice to fund her programme on the backs of disabled people. Is he comfortable with that? Michael Marra: That is certainly not what I am saying. What I am setting out is that the choice that is in front of the chancellor is between investing in fiscal competence and stability or moving away from those rules. The case that I am making, which I have set out quite clearly already, is that I do not think that this is the time to move away from those rules. We had a significant change to the fiscal rules only a matter of weeks ago, and to do that again at this point would cause chaos. We do not have to look too far for the example of that chaos: Liz Smith pointed out what happens when somebody like Liz Truss takes such an approach.”
“Kenneth Gibson made similar points in bemoaning the situation regarding the fiscal rules. Again, no answer was given as to what the fiscal rules should be. Some front-bench members asked, “What about Germany?” Of course, the situation in Germany is that it has indebtedness of 62 per cent of its GDP in comparison with indebtedness of 100 per cent of GDP in the UK economy. The change to Germany’s fiscal position has resulted in the largest increase in interest rates in 30 years. If that had happened in this country, that would have led to a £4 billion comparative increase in our debt. How would the Scottish Government deal with that? Shona Robison: What the member chooses to ignore is that other EU countries have similarly set aside defence spending outside their debt rules and have managed to do that successfully.”
“Michael Marra: I certainly agree that we have to listen to expert learned advice on the structure and direction of our economy when we make decisions. That is absolutely clear. Liz Smith advocated a shift in the fiscal rules, but she did not answer the question about what policy approach should be taken. The challenge is how we achieve the higher amount of fiscal headroom that Liz Smith, Michelle Thomson and other members appear to be advocating. If that is not to be provided through cuts to public spending and higher taxes—finding a match between the two— where will it come from? I thought that Michelle Thomson seemed to be simultaneously advocating higher debt in the UK economy and bemoaning the high indebtedness of the UK economy. I say to her that she will find that that is, to quote “Wicked”, indeed “Defying Gravity”.”
“That radically changed the prospects for capital investment in this country over the years to come. I disagree with many members in that, at a time when we are seeking economic stability and leadership, I do not think that it would be credible to radically change the economic rules again within a matter of weeks. That would not send the right signals to people who deal with the markets, given our highly indebted economy. Liz Smith: The member is absolutely right about the markets. Liz Truss had an absolutely unmitigated disaster because she did not listen to what the financial institutions were telling her. However, there is a danger that Rachel Reeves will repeat that when it comes to listening to advice and responding to the changing world. Does the member agree that that could become a problem?”
“The chancellor missed opportunities in her spring statement to make the UK economy fairer and to support people in need while, at the same time, recognising that a new world requires new fiscal rules and new priorities. I am very disappointed by the impact that her decisions will have on the UK as a whole, but especially on Scotland. 17:52 Michael Marra: I welcome all the contributions to the debate. I will begin where Lorna Slater finished, because the topic of the fiscal rules has underpinned much of the discussion this afternoon. A very significant change in the fiscal rules was made following the UK Government’s autumn budget. There was a change in the amount of money that could be used for long-term capital investment and in how it was counted against debt.”
“When wealth is hoarded—whether it is invested in depreciating assets such as luxury cars, held in static assets such as mansions or hidden offshore in tax havens—it is not contributing to the economy. In order for money to contribute to the economy and for that wealth to do us good, the money needs to circulate. Cracking down on tax avoidance and winkling out that money through wealth taxation are the ways to get money back in circulation and ensure that the system works for everybody. Secondly, Michael Marra mentioned the increase to the national living wage, but that is still not a real living wage. It traps all workers who receive it in poverty. That is nothing to brag about.”
“We are approaching critical points of no return for achieving essential outcomes in energy security and emissions reduction.” In her spring statement, the chancellor could have made a feature of measures to bring about green growth, which would support the desperately needed transition away from the declining oil and gas industry to industries that have a long-term future. I challenge some of the points that Michael Marra made. First, on the tax base, not thinking beyond income tax represents a lack of imagination. There could be pollution taxes, carbon taxes, wealth taxes and land value taxes. The growth that the economy has experienced for the past 200 years has created wealth, but most of it is being hoarded by very few individuals.”
“In other words, the economic benefits, including the ripple effect into the green economy, exceeded £157 billion. The future is green. If the chancellor is looking for growth, she will find it in the green economy. The CBI report makes it clear that green industries are primed for rapid growth if policy makers create the right regulatory environment for them. It warns that, should policy makers fail to capitalise on the opportunities, the UK risks losing out to international competition. The CBI’s chief economist, Louise Hellem, said: “It is clear, you can’t have growth without green ... 2025 is the year when the rubber really hits the road—where inaction is indisputably costlier than action.”
“That is an insane use of resources and priorities. There is recognition across the chamber that North Sea oil and gas extraction is now in decline, and I hope that accepting the rate of decline will allow us all to focus on transition and building a green economy. If one thing is missing from the spring statement, it is the chancellor taking opportunities to grow and invest in the green economy. Preventing climate catastrophe is not optional. Members might recall me sharing information a few weeks ago from the CBI, which reported double-digit growth in the green economy, and I will repeat the figures. CBI Economics calculated that every pound that is spent on the green economy creates an additional £1.89 in gross value added across the wider economy.”
“He challenged Labour to take a bold approach, but he does not think that taxing rich people is a bold approach, perhaps because it makes things awkward at Conservative dinner parties. Accusing Labour of implementing economic misery, given the economic misery that was imposed by Brexit and Liz Truss, was really something to hear from across the chamber. I challenge whether a benefit system—a compassionate social safety net that looks after everybody and gives everybody a fair chance— can ever be described as unsustainable. What is unsustainable are tax breaks for fossil fuel extraction and use, while, at the same time, we have to spend more money to sequester the carbon away. We are paying twice: once for subsidising it, digging it up and burning it, and then to put it away safely so that it does not harm our environment too badly.”
“17:46 Lorna Slater: This afternoon, I find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Liz Smith on the UK Government’s self-imposed difficulty over its fiscal rules. An article in this weekend’s Financial Times raised concerns about the OBR’s role in UK democracy and the absurdity of sticking to such rules when the game has changed, especially given the absence of good data for the OBR to use and its history of very poor predictions. I will go through and comment on members’ contributions. Craig Hoy showed his sympathy for people who are on salaries of £100,000. He was clearly setting out his stall when we were mostly talking about the worries of the most vulnerable, who need benefits just to be able to wash and look after themselves.”
“Closer trade links with the EU were seen as the best option even by Labour voters, 65 per cent of whom thought it would pay greater economic dividends compared with a mere 15 per cent who favoured benefit cuts. The electorate seem to have a better grasp of economics than the chancellor. Presiding Officer, you know that I favour using quotes to illustrate my points in a speech. To draw this time from the musical “Wicked”, Scotland is “through with playing by the rules of someone else’s game.” To quote the show again, I go as far as to say the fiscal event is a load of “old shiz”. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will take advice on that one, Ms Thomson. We move to closing speeches.”
“The spring statement also shaved more off the earlier announced plans for departmental budgets. It is assumed that the UK Government administration budget will be cut by 15 per cent, but details on that are scarce. Previous Labour Governments made regular efforts to achieve governmental savings, but none ever materialised. Indeed, in almost all cases, expenditure on administration rose. As the Fraser of Allander put it, the spring statement is riddled with “optimism bias”. There is a very large elephant in the room: how could we address the need to generate economic growth as a means to improve our economic health and tackle the international uncertainty that has been born of wars and Donald Trump’s tariffs? Perhaps a pre-spring statement survey from YouGov can help.”
“Yet, by comparing the composition of cuts and increases, we see that overseas aid is being cut by £3.2 billion in day-to- day spending, which counts against the main fiscal rule, whereas the rise in defence spending is very different, with only £0.6 billion in day-to-day spending. The planned increase in defence spending is over 90 per cent capital, which is completely different from current patterns of defence spending, in which only 35 per cent is capital. In other words, the net effect of the changes to overseas aid and defence is to contribute £2.6 billion towards restoring the headroom target. Even after all that effort, the OBR gave the current plans only a 54 per cent chance of achieving a budget balance by 2029-30. Even that 54 per cent is predicated on an end to fuel duty freezes, which we all know will not happen.”
“The cost of borrowing has seen a rise in interest on 20- year gilts to around 5.5 per cent, and debt interest in the UK is now approaching £111 billion each year. That is not the result of emerging world uncertainty; it is a result of structural issues in the UK economy, compounded by Brexit. Those payments for debt dwarf the entire Scottish Government budget. The spring statement could ultimately lead to a further cut of around £900 million for the Scottish Government. Michael Marra: Will the member give way? Michelle Thomson: I will carry on, if the member does not mind. It is claimed that cuts to overseas aid are to fund a rise in defence spending.”
“As Paul Johnson of the IFS said, “The Treasury has clearly worked overtime to ensure ... precisely the same fiscal headroom”. He went on to comment that that is not a terribly sensible way of either using the IFS’s time or making policy. That understatement gently points out that it is the chancellor’s restrictive fiscal rules that are driving policy, rather than the aim of doing the right things for people and the economy. It is increasingly likely that the headroom will vanish well before the next fiscal event and might be wiped out entirely by the coming of tariffs. On tariffs, Sir Keir Starmer claimed today: “we have prepared for all eventualities”. If that were so, an indication of strategy or scenario plans would have been set out in the fiscal event of last week, but there was none.”
“I will restrict my remarks to the spring statement. It was sold as a little bit of tinkering to help people, which perhaps sounds kinder than what it really was: a full-on attack on the most vulnerable in our society—and on the most vulnerable of those, in the form of disabled people. A week before the spring statement, cuts to PIP were announced. A week later, the overall cost of PIP was further cut by the announcement of a freeze for existing recipients. That change had nothing to do with rational policy reform and certainly nothing to do with helping people into work; rather, it had everything to do with reaching the chancellor’s headroom target. The most revealing aspect of the spring statement is that it has resulted in restoring the anticipated headroom to exactly £9.9 billion.”