Paul O'Kane
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“It is clear that any ban on phones will have to involve young people. They will have to help to co-design it and they will have to be at the heart of how we implement it—we should not forget that in the debate. There are already myriad discussions about how we might do that.”
“That is why we have advocated for a national charter on behaviour and standards and national leadership on discipline in schools, to empower headteachers to set out consequences, look at the issue of community partners such as campus cops and restore the relationships that now do not exist in many local authorities.”
“I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and in doing so, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the issue to the chamber, and I wish her well. Pam was one of the first MSPs I met when I was elected to this place; we were in the same little group on the first day.”
“I am sure that many of us who watched the first day of proceedings in 1999 never thought that we would sit in the chamber and help to form the next part of the story of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Her work with me and others across committees on drug deaths and drug harms was very important. I hope that we will all continue to focus on that in the next session of Parliament. She can be assured that her contribution in that space is very valued. I also pay tribute to you, Deputy Presiding Officer.”
“Given that it is the last day of the parliamentary session and that we are about to enter an election period, colleagues will expect some politics from me. It is clear that the Government has failed to grip these issues during this session.”
The complete record
Every one of 463 lines we hold for Paul O'Kane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
“When the Scottish National Party was in Opposition, it made that case, and it has been raised on several occasions in the Parliament over the years. It is concerning that we are still relying on mixed-sex wards in some healthcare settings. It has been put on record that Dumfries and Galloway is now the only board to have only single-sex wards. There are issues about dignity and respect for everyone who uses the NHS and about ensuring the broader need for dignity, privacy and safety. This afternoon’s debate has allowed us to examine some very serious issues and concerns that have been raised regarding hospitals and healthcare settings.”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke about trying to find four-nations consensus on gender recognition reform. That is important. Audrey Nicoll, the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, spoke about broader work on violence against women and girls. That was supported by Pauline McNeill. There have been a number of important contributions this afternoon. I will turn to the practical actions that our amendment seeks to develop. Mixed-sex wards were raised in Jackie Baillie’s contribution and in speeches from others on this side of the chamber. There are significant challenges with the policy. Scottish Labour’s 2021 manifesto committed to taking further action to end the common use of mixed-sex wards across the NHS. That is a long- held position.”
“We also heard about the importance of affording dignity and respect to trans people and to everyone who uses and relies on our public services in Scotland daily, for a variety of needs. I have always tried to say that we must have respect in our debates, and that applying general pejorative terms to whole groups of people is wrong and does a disservice to many of our debates—the one this afternoon and others over a longer period. This afternoon, important contributions were made recognising some of the polarising language that we often hear and the challenges therein. We heard about that from the cabinet secretary. From contributions on this side of the chamber and elsewhere, we have heard about the importance of following the law that is currently in place and about practice perhaps moving ahead of the law.”
“On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I rise to sum up the debate. I will begin, as my colleague Claire Baker did, by stating that it has been important to focus on facts—on what we know to be the case—and the legal position. That has been outlined in many speeches this afternoon, including the opening speech by my colleague Jackie Baillie, which set in context the legal position that we recognise today. We have also heard much, from across the chamber, about acknowledgement of the need to balance the rights and protections that exist in the Equality Act 2010. We heard about the importance of acknowledging the validity of perspectives that have been raised by women and girls who are concerned about their safety, and the range of issues that sit within that, which have been covered in many speeches this afternoon.”
“The UK Government is not just expanding that lifeline scheme; it is also delivering an extra £41 million, through consequentials, to the household support fund, to provide support. The cabinet secretary and I have had many debates about that, because it took quite some time to understand what the Scottish Government’s plans were for those Barnett consequentials and the difference that they can make in supporting people in Scotland. I have already mentioned in my exchange with Stephen Kerr the £5.2 billion that was allocated to the Scottish budget at UK level, which has sought to end what was, quite frankly, a period of Conservative decline and inaction.”
“The Scottish Government wants to pretend that the new UK Labour Government has done absolutely no work to begin to tackle the issues and to look at them in a serious way and in detail. We must take a moment to reflect on the actions that have been taken. We should all welcome the UK Labour Government’s recent announcement that it is expanding the £150 warm home discount scheme, so that 220,000 more Scottish households will receive help to reduce their energy costs. That scheme provides energy bill support to the people who are most in need. The result of that UK Labour Government intervention is that one in every five families in Scotland is now eligible for help with their bill. That is a total of 500,000 households.”
“That shock has been delayed, but we will begin to feel it as of next month, when, it is reported, hundreds of thousands of businesses are planning to let people go because of the tax increases that Paul O’Kane’s Labour Government is forcing on them. There is an aftershock from Rachel Reeves’s October budget, is there not? Paul O’Kane: I will not take a lecture on tax from the Conservatives, who placed the highest tax burden on working people in more than a generation. The issue has been well debated in the chamber. If Mr Kerr’s party had made different decisions, we would be in a very different place and the £5.2 billion funding for Scotland would not, in fact, be available. I said at the outset that I feel that the Scottish Government’s motion is fundamentally unserious.”
“We continue to live with the effects of the decisions that were taken without due consideration of the impact that they would have on borrowing rates, general finances and the economy. We are still living with those shocks. It is absolutely the case that we can argue the point about the inheritance of the Labour UK Government, but we cannot get away from the fact that those decisions are having a knock-on impact, as we meet today. Stephen Kerr: Will the member give way? Paul O’Kane: I will give way to Stephen Kerr, then I will make some progress. Stephen Kerr: Does Paul O’Kane also accept that a shock was contained in last October’s budget?”
“Does that not make an even stronger case for production of our own oil and gas, so that we can increase our energy security? Paul O’Kane: Douglas Lumsden knows that I believe in an energy mix and that we must continue to use the resources that we have in Scotland. I also believe that it is vital that we open up the potential for a just transition away from oil and gas, while taking the resources opportunities that are available to us, not the least of which is nuclear power, which I will come on to talk about. Although Ukraine is a huge part of the context, we cannot get away from the actions of the previous UK Government. Liz Smith referenced Liz Truss—I feel that she knew that members would mention her mini-budget.”
“I want to make it clear that I welcome the opportunity to discuss what more we can do across the UK and in the Parliament to ensure that we support our constituents as they struggle through the cost of living crisis. We cannot get away from the context in which we meet this afternoon. We know that many of the shocks that the energy market has experienced result from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the challenges that exist therein, as has been outlined, including the volatile reaction of world leaders—not least President Trump—and the on- going issues that the Prime Minister and others are having to deal with on an international scale. Douglas Lumsden: The member mentioned the invasion of Ukraine and how that affects our energy security.”
“So, I am slightly disappointed that the tone of the Government’s motion seems to be somewhat unserious in many respects. In recent weeks, there has been a return to the sort of grudge-and- grievance politics and debates in the chamber that we were all too familiar with in the earlier years of this parliamentary session. When the new UK Labour Government came to power last summer, we made it very clear that we did not want to play our part in those grudge-and-grievance politics and squabbling. It was about coming together and trying to work together to further improve the lives of the people of Scotland. There have been very positive steps in that regard, particularly in the field of energy and energy security, with Governments working together to tackle the challenges of energy prices.”
“I am pleased to follow Liz Smith. Although I did not agree with everything that she said in her speech—as colleagues might have guessed—I think that she made some important and serious points, as she always does in her speeches. I believe that she will be missed when she leaves the Parliament at the election next year. This is the first opportunity that I have had to say that to Liz Smith, so I want to put that on the record as we begin the debate this afternoon. A lot of what Liz Smith said about the seriousness of the debate and the seriousness of the issues is important and pertinent. There can be no more important issue that we debate in the chamber than the cost of living crisis and the pressure that it puts on the people we all seek to represent.”
“Any changes that are made, especially those that relate to people who are in receipt of sickness benefit or who are disabled, must be geared towards investment in ensuring that people can be supported into work. Just this morning, the DWP and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced that 1,000 extra job coaches will be deployed in the jobcentre network to support people to get into work. Such interventions will be crucial. I am happy to acknowledge that many challenges exist across the variety of issues that contribute to poverty in our country, but we must have a serious, grown-up and nuanced debate about how we can tackle all those facets through the social security system and access to work. It is clear to me that members of the Government party have no intention of doing that today. 13:06”
“My party, as the party that founded this Parliament, supports the principle of the devolution of decision making, but we cannot escape the fact that we must have a discussion about how we pay for such things. I called the debate unserious because we are not having that discussion and it is not mentioned in the motion. We must have an open and honest discussion about the purpose of social security and how we can ensure that people get the right support to get into work and to arrive at true and meaningful positive destinations. I am happy to try to inject some nuance into the debate by saying that the positive steps that I have outlined that the Labour Government has taken so far must be coupled with further reform work. That is why the reform of universal credit and the UK Government’s on-going review are so important.”
“More than £1 million of social security overpayments will not be recovered, which creates an unnecessary fiscal pressure. There have been significant issues setting up the agency, including a £39 million spend on information technology systems and a low staff occupancy rate at its Dundee headquarters, which has annual running costs of £1.5 million. As the motion highlights, the spend on social security above the block grant adjustment is ever rising, which puts pressure on tax receipts in Scotland and other spending portfolios. At this morning’s meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, the cabinet secretary acknowledged—perhaps for the first time—that there is pressure on the budget and that the implications are “stark”. I make it clear that it is legitimate for such decisions to be taken in this Parliament.”
“There is no mention of the changes to statutory sick pay that were announced this week, which mean that 1.3 million of the lowest paid Britons can access sick pay from day 1 of their sickness, and that they do not have to choose between their health and earning a living. That goes alongside the UK Employment Rights Bill, which I will speak about in my contribution. From reading the motion and listening to the opening speech in the debate, members would think that Social Security Scotland is completely flawless in this space. However, the roll-outs of adult disability payment and child disability payment have involved significantly higher processing times than their DWP equivalents have. Tragically, in 2023 alone, almost 100 people died while they were waiting for their ADP applications to be approved.”
“It is the Labour Government’s intention to ensure that people who want to work can access work and are supported to do so. I will say more about that in my speech. It is important to deal in the facts about what seven months of a UK Labour Government have meant for those issues. There is no mention in the motion of the changes that have been made, such as the fair repayment rate on debt, which means that 110,000 Scottish households will be, on average, £420 a year better off because of our universal credit reforms. There is no mention of the changes to the earnings threshold for carers allowance to allow unpaid carers to earn more while they keep their entitlements. That is the biggest change to carers allowance since 1974 and a move that the Scottish Government took weeks to confirm that it would follow.”
“I want to try to be generous to Marie McNair, but I would describe the motion and the debate as unserious. I say that because we are debating a motion that seeks to discuss proposed reforms to UK social security payments that have not, in fact, been announced and the detail of which none of us has seen. The proposals have appeared publicly in the press in a way that I think the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice referred to in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee this morning as “rumours”. It is important that we look at the context of where we are right now. Stephen Kerr: To be fair to Marie McNair and the motion, is it not the Labour Government’s intention to cut the welfare bill by helping people back into work? Paul O’Kane: I have just said that there are reforms that have not yet been consulted on.”
“In a 2024 report from the Poverty Alliance in Scotland for its collaborative project with the Scottish Government to assess the impacts of poverty related stigma on benefit take-up—”
“For an easy political hit, Labour plans to adopt austerity on stilts instead of dignity, fairness and respect. It will hurt real people in my constituency and across Scotland. Under its plans, disabled people will be seriously impacted, and the financial insecurity of vulnerable households will increase. To put that into figures, there are reports that, by 2029, more than 450,000 disabled people and people with long-term conditions across the UK could be impacted as a result of the proposed reforms to the work capability assessment, with many losing payments that are currently worth more than £400 per month. Only yesterday, the BBC reported that “The Chancellor has earmarked several billion pounds in draft spending cuts to welfare”.”
“Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow has pointed out that, under the previous Labour Government, benefit sanctions rose to some of their highest levels. The stigmatisation of those on benefits has terrible consequences for individuals and for a fair society in which no one should be left behind. In its report, “Jumping through hoops”, Independent Age quotes Susan, who described her experience of claiming UK benefits as “Reducing me to tears and even making me feel suicidal several times. Not only were the questions difficult to understand, dwelling on all of the things that I am no longer capable of doing sent me into a very dark place.” That is not someone who is looking for a “handout”; it is not someone “gaming the system”; and it is not someone “taking the mickey”.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Marie McNair: I will only take it if I can get the time back, because I am really tight for time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You will get the time back. Paul O’Kane: Does Marie McNair accept that an important part of dignity for disabled people is ensuring that disabled people who want to access work can do so. Does she accept that simple premise? Marie McNair: Of course I do. I thank Paul O’Kane for his intervention. However, I thought that you would stand up to apologise for how your party is treating our most vulnerable in Scotland and the wider UK. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Speak through the chair please, Ms McNair. Marie McNair: Instead, Labour plans to proceed, with those on essential social security benefits being an easy target. We should not be surprised by that.”
“They are an example to follow, and I hope that the decisions that we take in the coming period will honour their example. 18:04”
“For example, my colleague Paul Sweeney touched on the aerospace, defence, marine and space industry leadership group in Scottish Enterprise, and called for a re- examination of the investment rules of the Scottish National Investment Bank on how we might drive forward defence production in Scotland. Presiding Officer, I am conscious of the time. This has been an important debate. For the rest of our lives, none of us will forget the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian servicemen and women, and the people of Ukraine, over the past three years. They have shown an unshakeable determination to defend their lives, their country, their way of life and the total commitment in that country to the values of democracy and the rules- based order that we all, as democrats, hold dear.”
“As I have mentioned, we must now reckon with fundamental challenges as the situation in and around Ukraine takes on a new phase. In that spirit, I greatly welcome the First Minister’s statement and comments yesterday, particularly the comment that there has been a shift in the need to prioritise our security interests, and his willingness for the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government in whatever support is required to drive forward the diplomatic and defence efforts that the Prime Minister is taking forward. In that sense of working together, it is important that we continue to focus on how Scotland can play its role. Many direct questions that were asked in the chamber yesterday deserve further explanation.”
“Diplomacy often requires conversations and statements that are deeply uncomfortable—there is no getting away from that—and there will be many more of those to come in the days, weeks and months ahead. Stephen Kerr: Will Paul O’Kane join me in paying tribute to the King for the way in which he has handled his responsibilities in the past few days, and for the messaging through which, undoubtedly, he is giving support to the people of Ukraine and to the people of Canada? Paul O’Kane: I associate myself with Stephen Kerr’s comments. Britain has an important role in the world in what is often termed “soft power”. His Majesty the King has very clearly demonstrated his support for Ukraine and his desire to play a role in the diplomatic process as we move forward.”
“In working with Ukraine to come to what we hope might be a just and lasting peace, there can be no getting away from the volatile shifts in the halls of diplomatic power. As things change rapidly, it can be all too tempting to react to every piece of news by taking to social media, or expect a running commentary from the many Government representatives and diplomats who are involved in difficult and intense negotiations. However, it has been refreshing and reassuring to see the United Kingdom Government, led by the efforts of Keir Starmer, reject that approach, roll up its sleeves and take the lead in serious diplomatic efforts to pull together our allies.”
“That has been vitally important, and long may it continue. I will focus this evening, as many colleagues have done, on the events of the past week. The latest developments on Ukraine demonstrate that we face a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our country and our continent. Global instability, Russian aggression in Ukraine, increasing threats from malign actors, climate change and rapid technological disruption have all contributed to a rapidly deteriorating security landscape. It is clear that we must protect Ukrainian sovereignty as we seek to resolve the reality with which Ukrainian people have lived for three years and longer. In that context, it is right that the UK steps forward as a leading partner to ensure our continental and global security.”
“That is not a dispute between two equals; it is a war of aggression and of Putin’s imperialism. We have heard that plain and simple fact resolutely from members across the chamber. In that context, it is right to echo the sentiments that have been expressed by the Prime Minister and by colleagues from all parties and Governments in the past three years. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and we will continue to do so for as long as it takes. I also express my gratitude to all those who have welcomed Ukrainians into their homes and communities. In the many debates that we have had in support of Ukraine, I have reflected the efforts across Renfrewshire, which Neil Bibby referenced, and East Renfrewshire—in particular, those by faith communities and groups that have come together to set up a welcome hub for people from Ukraine.”
“I am pleased to speak tonight and to lend my voice, in support and solidarity, to the defiant people of Ukraine. I thank Colin Beattie for securing the debate and for all the work that he has done in establishing the cross-party group on Ukraine, of which I am a deputy convener. That has been a great innovation in this Parliament, allowing all parties to come together and to stand in solidarity with the consul and with representatives of the Ukrainian community in Scotland. I think that we are doing valuable work, and I hope that the Ukrainian community feels that value. I am grateful to Colin Beattie for his leadership on that. No discussion of events—not only in the past three years but since the annexation of Crimea in 2014—can be had unless we recognise that Russia is the aggressor and that Ukraine is the victim.”
“Scotland’s economic success is not just a possibility but a certainty, if we are given the right tools and investment. We have the industries, the talent and the drive to build a fairer, greener and more prosperous nation. To do that, we need a UK Government that recognises Scotland’s worth. The SNP will continue to fight for a fair balance. We will continue to push for investment in Grangemouth, Glasgow airport, UWS and all of Scotland’s economic centres. Ultimately, we will continue to make the case that Scotland’s best future lies with independence, where decisions about our economy are made here, in Scotland, for Scotland. 16:05”
“Scotland’s economic strength and Westminster’s failure are on-going. Under the SNP Government, Scotland has received record foreign direct investment, outperforming the rest of the UK outside of London. We are leading the way in renewables, life sciences and data-driven innovation, yet Westminster continues to hold Scotland back. Just look at the chancellor’s recent economic plans. They offer nothing for Scotland, they fail to replace the European Union structural funds, they fail to deliver the promised £1 billion for carbon capture and they fail to secure Grangemouth’s future—no matter what Labour MSPs say in here today, they have failed to secure Grangemouth’s future. Those failures show that Labour is no different from the Tories when it comes to prioritising Scotland’s needs.”
“Originally designed to detect Covid-19, that AI can now identify tuberculosis, pneumonia and even certain cancers with remarkable accuracy. That breakthrough could revolutionise healthcare not just in Scotland but worldwide, reducing pressures on our national health service and improving outcomes for patients. In addition, UWS’s partnership with Kibble is delivering pioneering remote health monitoring, which provides real-time support for vulnerable young people in crisis. Those innovations show the immense potential for Scotland’s knowledge economy, yet, once again, we see a lack of UK-wide investment in our research institutions, as the Labour Government prioritises investment elsewhere. Those examples are the type of innovation that Scotland needs and that we need to continue with in the future.”
“There is innovation in Paisley—as everyone will know, I am always the first to talk about that—and the University of the West of Scotland has research on economic growth as one of its prime ideas. Paisley is not just a town of heritage and history; it is a centre of innovation. UWS is leading the way in cutting-edge technology and research. During a recent visit, I met Professor Naeem Ramzan of the university’s school of computing, engineering and physical sciences. Some of the work that is being done there is incredible. Let us invest in that excellence and in what UWS is doing. I will highlight one innovation that UWS researchers have developed: artificial intelligence technology that is capable of rapidly detecting serious health conditions from X-ray images.”
“George Adam: There are people shouting from the side, and they are almost as irrelevant as some of the things that they have tried to provide. I return to the £1 billion that is being given to a chancer who is shutting down Grangemouth, as opposed to the people we are trying to represent. With the right backing, Grangemouth could supply the aviation industry with sustainable fuel, strengthening the role of Glasgow airport and reinforcing Scotland’s commitment to net zero. Instead, we have a Labour UK Government that is following in the footsteps of the Tories by overpromising and underdelivering for Scotland. That is why the SNP will continue to demand the investment that Scotland deserves.”
“George Adam: I will say only that there was £1 billion given to Ineos, which is an owner of Manchester United, and there was also £600 million given to Ineos for a place in Belgium. Come on—who is on the side of the people of Grangemouth? It is definitely not the Labour Party. When we talk about transport infrastructure, we need to make sure that Glasgow airport is part of the sustainable aviation fuel future, which is why we need to look at Grangemouth as the site for that. Sustainable aviation fuel produces up to 70 per cent less carbon emissions, and it is made using materials from household waste, agricultural residues, used cooking oils and green nitrogen. Grangemouth is perfectly sited for that. Michael Marra: That is why it is getting £200 million.”
“It is an industrial site that is primed to become a leader in sustainable aviation. Fuel production studies have confirmed that Grangemouth is ideally placed to support that transition, yet Westminster has focused its funding efforts elsewhere. If you are Manchester United, you can get £1 billion for the redevelopment of Old Trafford, but there is nothing for the people of Grangemouth. Michael Marra: Will George Adam give way? George Adam: I wonder whether Mr Marra will want to answer that. Michael Marra: It is bizarre that George Adam has missed in the earlier speeches and my exchanges with the minister the fact that, just last week, an additional £200 million was announced to support the people of Grangemouth. Does he call that “nothing”?”
“I, too, represent the community to which George Adam refers, including Glasgow airport. Does he share my concern that it is possible to get a direct train from Glasgow central station to Manchester airport but not possible to get a direct train to Glasgow airport, which is a significant challenge to achieving the growth that we need in our area? George Adam: I did not notice Paul O’Kane at the recent Strathclyde Partnership for Transport Clyde metro hub meeting—SPT is working on that for the future as we speak. This is about a positive way of looking at the future. Let us leave the negativity to others and look at what we can do. The future for Grangemouth is as a hub for sustainable aviation fuel. One of the clearest examples of the economic imbalance in the UK is the lack of UK Government investment in Grangemouth.”
“As I set out in my answer to Miles Briggs, we are clear that a strong and well-supported social work profession is key to delivering the aims that are set out in the independent review of adult social care and the Promise. We are already working collectively with partners to identify different ways to resolve the issues that social work faces, such as the recruitment and retention questions that Mr O’Kane mentioned. As I said, the immediate priority is to focus on wider improvements for the profession through the development of the national social work agency, which the Scottish Government is committed to.”
“I think that the words of support that the minister gave in her statement were the only mention of the workforce in the entire statement. When will the improvement plan be produced? What action will be undertaken to tackle the issues that are leading to depletion and burnout? Natalie Don-Innes: I do not think that that was the only reference to the workforce. I put on record a clear thanks to everyone who is involved in such work across Scotland for the priority and commitment that they give to driving forward change. I have stated that the Scottish Government fully recognises the pressures that the social work workforce is under, and we will work collectively to ensure that children and young people receive the level of care that they deserve.”
“The report stresses clearly the importance of the workforce in delivering the Promise, and in particular the pivotal role of social workers. It calls for recommendations to be implemented, including that on the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities producing a joint workforce improvement plan, which was due in autumn 2024 and should now be delivered as a matter of urgency. It also says that “Ways of working should be reviewed to ... drive out duplication and wasted effort.” Given that the latest chief social work officer survey report from Social Work Scotland describes a crisis in local authorities in recruitment and retention, and given the ageing workforce and capacity issues, does the minister agree that social work and the wider workforce are vital in delivering the Promise?”
“When I had the opportunity to close the stage 1 debate on the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill on behalf of Scottish Labour, I expressed that a number of things had become clear in the budget process— principally that the UK Labour Government had delivered record investment in the Scottish budget with the largest block grant in the history of devolution, adding £5.2 billion to the Scottish budget. The UK Government made that choice in its budget. It was a choice to bring to an end 14 years of austerity that we had under the Conservatives. It is curious that we are hearing quite a lot of accord between the SNP and the Tories today, but those of us who have been in Scottish politics for a long time should not be surprised by that.”
“The Fraser of Allander Institute has warned of risks stored up and the potential for further emergency measures being needed in the next financial year, although I guess that we should have expected that, as it is an annual occurrence with this Government. Today is not a new day for the First Minister or the Government. After 18 years, they have lost their way and they have lost ambition for the people of Scotland. It is clear that, after 18 years of such leadership, one budget cannot change course or provide a new direction for our public services. Indeed, it appears that the Government does not recognise that a new direction is required at all, so the only way that we can change direction in Scotland is with a new Government. 16:42”
“I have tolerated a reasonable amount of sedentary commentary on the speech that Mr O’Kane is delivering. I would be grateful if that could now cease. Mr O’Kane, please continue. Paul O’Kane: I am very grateful, Presiding Officer, because these are important points and it is important that the people of Scotland hear this debate. We in the Labour Party are concerned about the short-termism and short-term decisions from the Government. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has criticised the lack of direction on tax policy. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has repeatedly expressed concerns about delays in publishing key financial documents, such as a medium-term financial strategy.”
“The First Minister tells us that everything is going to be all right because he is here, but I do not think that the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, Unison and other trade unions—all those who have spoken with serious concern about the lack of ambition that the Government has for the NHS—are convinced by that. There is a lack of direction in the budget. My colleague Mark Griffin outlined the challenges in housing, where the Government is simply replacing money that was lost through serious cuts to the housing budget and doing half of what it should do. Pam Duncan-Glancy outlined with clarity and in some detail the failure in education under the Government. Of course, we know that it is not just— [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please resume your seat, Mr O’Kane.”
“The reality is that people are being— The First Minister: Will Mr O’Kane allow me to intervene? Paul O’Kane: I am not taking the intervention. We have the botched national care service, which had to be ditched because the Government would not listen, and people who have learning disabilities are being dramatically failed by the Government. There is a permanent crisis in our NHS, and what has the answer from the Government been? We have had five plans for recovery for the NHS in less than four years—five plans in my time in the Parliament. We have had three First Ministers, three health secretaries, five recovery plans and a serious lack of new direction and change for the NHS.”
“Michael Marra—[Interruption.] The Government would do well to listen to this point, because it is very serious and very stark. The First Minister: Is it? Paul O’Kane: Yes, it is, First Minister. One in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list on the First Minister’s watch. There are 100,000 Scots waiting more than a year for treatment, fewer operations and people languishing in pain.—[Interruption.] Members are laughing about the state of the NHS in Scotland. That is, quite frankly, appalling. It is clear that a botched national care service has not delivered— The First Minister: Will the member take an intervention? Paul O’Kane: I will not. I am not going to let the First Minister, who sat there and laughed at one in six Scots being on a waiting list, justify his position.”
“I want to make progress. That brings me to the point that I want to make about the budget. This is not year 1 of a new Government. It is not the first budget that this Government has delivered. It is the 18th budget under the SNP and the 17th budget of a Government with John Swinney at its heart. There are members here who had just left school when the First Minister began to deliver budgets in Scotland. Instead of this budget being an opportunity taken to transform public services, it is a correction of some of the worst mistakes that the Government has made, which have been 18 years in the making by the SNP. It is a missed- opportunity budget delivered by a tired Government that has lost its way. This afternoon, my colleagues have outlined where the problems are in our public services.”
“Kate Forbes: Does the fact that, while Labour was going to abstain on the budget, the Government was willing to engage with other parties to secure changes for them not demonstrate that the Government is absolutely serious about building consensus and unity in delivering for Scotland, and does it not reveal that the Labour Party is far out of kilter with that objective? Paul O’Kane: The Government spent months shadow-boxing on those issues. We were threatened with the breakdown of public services, with the rise of Elon Musk and with all manner of issues. The reality is that the budget does not provide a new direction in our public services on which we could build a consensus in Scotland. It does not change the direction of the Government or the country. Ross Greer: Will the member take an intervention? Paul O’Kane: No, I will not.”
“Indeed, the patter about being always the bridesmaid, never the bride would be more at home in the Pavilion than here in the debating chamber of the Scottish Parliament. It was always clear that the Greens and the Liberal Democrats would sign up to help the Government pass the budget. Instead of that political intrigue—for which the First Minister and the Government were so desperate in order to distract from the fundamental question how the Government would reform the public sector in Scotland—we have sought to focus on that very question.”