Michael Marra
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“I thank Jack Middleton for bringing the debate to the chamber. Its subject is of widespread concern, and will impact significantly on communities across the north of Scotland and in my North East Scotland region.”
“Indeed, the decline of quality local journalism that is embedded close to people is a tragedy. As many local newspapers face increasing issues with sustainability, it has become more, rather than less, important for the biggest companies and corporations to ensure that their journalism is rooted in communities.”
“More broadly, I believe—Jack Middleton has touched on some of this—that the decision is an act of surrender to what is a wildfire of commoditised fear that is weaponised by tech oligarchs to purposely undermine real freedom in pursuit of power and profit.”
“Although it is a commercial decision from STV, backed by the regulator to this point, it is also the latest example of what is becoming an ever- growing list of services being centralised away from communities in Scotland. Those in the north- east and further afield have, over the years, seen the same situation before.”
“The absence of regional journalism will only hasten that process, and whatever we might think, collectively, about the barrier and where the balance should sit, local people should have that accountability and the opportunity to make their case about where power is situated.”
“I welcome the hard work that Our Union Street is doing to re-energise Union Street and the centre of Aberdeen. The project is working along with partners to bring together a shared vision of the future of the city centre.”
The complete record
Every one of 754 lines we hold for Michael Marra, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 16.
“I was struck this week that the focus of the Government’s press activity on the bill has been Gaelic-medium education. We are strong supporters of Gaelic-medium education, and minor tweaks have been supported by all parties to ensure that that is provided. However, it is, inevitably, peripheral to whether Gaelic survives as a living language. That is part of the evidence that comes out, and perhaps part of what the Deputy First Minister referred to as the challenge that emerges from the census figures—although there is a larger number of people speaking a basic level of Gaelic, the number of people who continue to use it beyond childhood is decreasing rather than increasing.”
“The short-life working group on economic and social opportunities for Gaelic, which the Deputy First Minister herself commissioned in March 2022, made similar arguments in its report. Although its members perhaps did not go as far as Scottish Labour did in our paper; their comments were similar in tone. The Government does not appear to have listened to those arguments, though. I ask the Deputy First Minister to reflect on them in her closing remarks. I fear that the SNP Government has turned its face against the real prospect that, in 20 years’ time, there could be no Gaelic language left to save, because it has been put in the pile of issues that are too hard to deal with. I welcome the amendments that the Government has worked with members across the chamber to lodge and the modest and incremental changes that they bring to the bill.”
“Young people grow up in traditional Gaelic-speaking areas, but they find that there are not enough homes, well-paid jobs, reliable ferries or roads there to enable them to build lives for themselves and their communities. Instead, they leave for opportunities in urban areas, in Scotland or further afield, which are far from the Gaelic heartlands, and, increasingly, they are unlikely to return. Those are the issues that the Parliament and, I hope, the Government should tackle, but they are all outwith the scope of the bill. Scottish Labour’s 2023 policy paper “Gaelic: An Economic Plan for a Living Language” argued that economic issues including housing, jobs and other critical infrastructure must be addressed in order to arrest the decline of Gaelic.”
“We were therefore disappointed that, in the face of this existential crisis for Scotland’s ancient language, the Scottish National Party Government chose to introduce a narrowly drawn, education-focused bill. I have expressed that view to the Deputy First Minister. Of course, education is important for the survival of Gaelic, but it is not the principal means by which the language will be saved or where changes are required. The underlying reasons for the decline in the number of Gaelic speakers, particularly among younger generations, are not in the excellent teaching that is found in Stornoway or in the Gaelic-medium education schools in Glasgow or Edinburgh. The principal issues that endanger Gaelic are economic and social ones.”
“I have genuinely appreciated the Deputy First Minister’s collegiate approach since she took over dealing with the bill. Various members with far greater and longer-standing knowledge of this policy area than I have have told me that there is a desire to maintain the consensus on Gaelic matters that has underpinned previous laws, and I think that that is represented in parts of the bill’s approach. We should certainly not risk joining the prevalent culture wars by politicising the Gaelic culture and language. However, the Parliament’s cross-party group on Gaelic, of which I am a member, is genuinely concerned that cosy consensus is simply not working and that we are continuing to go in the wrong direction.”
“It is now 20 years since the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed. The vital question for us all now is where the Gaelic language will be in 20 years’ time. In 2020, research by academics at the University of the Highlands and Islands, entitled “The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community”, revealed stark findings. It said that the social use of Gaelic within communities was “at the point of collapse.” The decline in the number of Gaelic speakers was steepest among young people, the majority of whom were not using Gaelic either socially or in the home. The researchers warned that, without changes to policy and intervention at community level, the then-present Gaelic vernacular community would not survive beyond the next decade. That was five years ago, so time is clearly running out.”
“After section 13 Amendment 44 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to. After section 18 Amendment 3 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]— and agreed to. After section 22 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 7 is on Gaelic-medium education requests. Amendment 11, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendment 12. 16:45”
“The proposed provision will ensure that, for those subjects—or any subjects that are offered in the future through the medium of Gaelic—core documents, such as course specifications and supporting documentation that is prepared for pupils or teachers, will also be provided in Gaelic. I confirm that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s understanding is correct. The Scottish Government will ensure that the duty, if approved, is appropriately carried forward and placed on the SQA’s successor body, as part of the implementation of the Education (Scotland) Bill. I am happy to support amendment 3. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 43. Ross Greer: I have nothing further to add, other than to welcome the consensus on the issue. Amendment 43 agreed to.”
“We need to see Gaelic-medium education strengthened at secondary level, especially in the senior phase. That has been a strong point of feedback throughout my consultation conversations. Amendment 3 will strengthen the pathway from school to training and study and on to the world of work; it is welcome and will make an important contribution. For example, the SQA currently makes national 5, higher and advanced higher papers, through the medium of Gaelic, in a specific range of subjects, such as cruinn-eòlas, geography, eachdraidh, history, nuadh-eòlas, modern studies, and mathematics.”
“It was not so long ago that there was a lack of good-quality resources that were specifically produced for Gaelic-medium classes. There have been improvements, but there is still some way to go. I think that the amendments in this group support that progress. I am also happy to agree to a review duty to ensure that we continue to move forward in supporting teachers and young people. I will certainly look at how the statutory guidance can assist with illustrating the scope of the duty to translate. I massively appreciate and commend the work that bodies such as Stòrlann Nàiseanta na Gàidhlig, Scots Hoose and Yaldi Books have done over the years. We are happy to support amendments 43, 44, 62, 63 and 64. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 3 is important.”
“I commend the many authorities that have made good progress with Gaelic-medium education, and I believe that my amendment 3 will strengthen the continuity of Gaelic-medium education and the pathway for young people to secure Gaelic qualifications and continue their use of Gaelic throughout their educational journey. Kate Forbes: I thank Ross Greer for lodging and explaining his amendments. He talked about the pressures on classroom teachers. In my youth, the issue was the pressures on parents, all of whom put Gaelic translation labels on top of the English materials that we took home. That was how I was educated at primary school. At all stages—early years, primary and secondary—we need to ensure that young people and teachers have access to attractive, high- quality Gaelic and Scots resources.”
“Members will have noticed that amendment 3 will place duties on the SQA, which the Education (Scotland) Bill proposes to replace with a new qualifications body. I am sure that, in due course, we will debate that matter at great length. I understand that the procedure will be that, although my amendment 3 reflects the current position, if the education bill is passed, references to the SQA will be replaced as part of the implementation of that bill. I say that to reassure members that, should the education bill be passed, my amendment would stand the test of time. The bill strengthens support for Gaelic-medium education in various ways, and I welcome the amendments that Ross Greer has lodged in that area.”
“That applies “When the Scottish Qualifications Authority produces information, guidance or documents in the English language for use in connection with qualifications it has devised”, and it requires that equivalent Gaelic versions must be produced when the relevant qualification is available in Gaelic. The Glasgow Gaelic school, for example, has said that such a duty would be hugely beneficial to the school and its learners. Translation of such material must be produced “on request from the Scottish Ministers”, thereby ensuring that there is a mechanism for all relevant material to be translated. That will mean that young people who are learning through the medium of Gaelic are not disadvantaged, compared with their English-medium counterparts.”
“My amendment 3 will contribute to that ambition by ensuring that an appropriate number and range of qualifications are available through the medium of Gaelic. Proposed new section 16B, which amendment 3 seeks to insert into the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, will place a duty on the Scottish Qualifications Authority to ensure that its qualifications “include an appropriate number and range of qualifications” that are available in Gaelic. In deciding what is an appropriate number and range of qualifications, the SQA must seek advice from the Scottish ministers, Bòrd na Gàidhlig and others with an interest or expertise. Through proposed new section 16C of the 2016 act, amendment 3 will also place a duty on the SQA to ensure that appropriate material is available in the Gaelic language.”
“The quality and availability of resources and support for teachers and pupils are core elements of learning and teaching. Taken together, my amendments in this group will bring improvements and make a real difference to young people and teachers in Gaelic- medium education, in particular, but also to those who are learning in Scots. I move amendment 43. Pam Duncan-Glancy: An important area for the progress and development of Gaelic-medium education is continuity and more young people progressing from primary to broad general education and on to the senior phase. It is vital that young people are empowered to continue their Gaelic learning throughout their school career and beyond school, and to use their Gaelic skills in training and employment.”
“I hope that statutory guidance on GME could set out in further detail circumstances in which translation might or might not be relevant, so that authorities might be confident in knowing when translations would be produced. Amendment 44 is designed to strike the right balance in creating the mechanism but not being too onerous or prescriptive. Guidance can add to that. Amendment 44 also seeks to place a duty on ministers to keep under review the adequacy of Gaelic resources for school education. It will require them to prepare and publish reports that set out the steps that are necessary to address the issues that might be identified by the review, which will ensure that there is a process of continuous improvement. Amendments 62 to 64 seek to achieve all those aims for Scots.”
“Councils are best placed to know which materials will be most beneficial in the classrooms in their area, and they will be able to target such requests accordingly. Members will note that, like the amendment that I lodged at stage 2, amendment 44 contains a requirement to “consider” translation rather than an absolute requirement to translate in all cases. That is in recognition of the fact that some resources may be of no relevance to GME; for instance, they might relate to supplementary resources for specific subjects or qualifications that are not yet available through GME. If the primary subject is not available in GME, there would be no need to translate the supplementary resources.”
“Amendment 43 seeks to place a duty on ministers to “promote, facilitate and support the provision of adequate education resources” in Gaelic for use in school education by teachers and pupils. The duty in question is a general duty, which will ensure that the consideration of resources is embedded across the education system. Amendment 44 seeks to place a specific duty on the Scottish ministers to consider whether to produce information, guidance or documents for use in schools in Gaelic when they produce them in English. In practice, that will be done by Education Scotland, which is the relevant executive agency. Amendment 44 will also require ministers, if they are requested to do so by an education authority, to consider producing in Gaelic something that they have already produced in English.”
“Over recent years, the value of GME and bilingualism has been increasingly recognised by parents. However, the provision of teaching resources has not kept pace with demand. All teachers in Scotland are struggling with workload pressures, but GME teachers have the additional pressure of often having to translate the resources that they need to deliver education in their classrooms. That work should be done at the centre rather than by classroom teachers across the country, who often reinvent the wheel on top of all their other duties. The aim of my amendments in this group is to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate any deficit in the resources that are available, compared with English-language teaching resources. Resources for Scots also need attention, so that the language of home and community can become the language of the classroom.”
“Section 9A—Interpretation: meaning of public authority Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to. Section 9B—Scottish Ministers’ powers relating to research etc Amendment 41 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to. Section 9C—Financial assistance for the promotion etc of the Gaelic language Amendment 42 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to. Section 11—Duty of Scottish Ministers to promote Gaelic education The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 6 is on education material in Gaelic and Scots. Amendment 43, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 44, 3 and 62 to 64. Ross Greer: I think that this is my longest set of speaking notes, but they should still come to only a couple of minutes. Gaelic-medium education is a crucial part of the survival of the language.”
“If ministers accept the bòrd’s conclusion, they must direct the authority to implement the measures in the plan. Amendment 37 adjusts ministers’ direction- making powers so that they need only make such a direction “if they consider it necessary or expedient to do so”. That is to provide necessary flexibility, as the power of direction would be a power of last resort, even if the bòrd’s conclusion was accepted. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 35. Ross Greer: I have nothing to add. I press amendment 35. Amendment 35 agreed to. Section 9—Gaelic language plans Amendment 36 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to. Amendment 37 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to. Amendment 38 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.”
“Reporting is an important part of the policy process, because it shows us where progress has been made and where new interventions need to be considered. In this case, it will provide a clear message to the Scottish Government, the Parliament and relevant public authorities. I also believe that Mr Greer’s amendments demonstrate the important links between various provisions of the bill. Implementation is important, but the bill contains a strong package of mutually supportive measures for the future support and promotion of Gaelic. On that basis, we are happy to support amendments 35, 36 and 38. Under section 6 of the 2005 act as amended at stage 2, Bòrd na Gàidhlig can report to ministers on a public authority’s lack of compliance with its Gaelic language plan.”
“I think that that strikes the right balance between not putting too onerous a reporting requirement on the body that takes away its capacity to deliver and making sure that we have regular reporting on a situation that is genuinely at crisis point. I have two further amendments in this group, amendments 36 and 38, which propose that the Scottish ministers lay before Parliament any report about a public authority’s failure to implement its Gaelic language plan—that is, a failure of a public body in its statutory duties, as created by the bill. The purpose of those amendments is to ensure transparency and accountability. I move amendment 35. Kate Forbes: I agree with Mr Greer that reporting is necessary, and I also agree with him that two years feels about right.”
“As there will be a national Gaelic language strategy that includes objectives and targets, it is important that we have in place a clear and effective reporting regime for that. Gaelic is on the edge of extinction as a living language, so we need to have regular reporting against clear objectives and metrics in order to know whether we are turning the situation around. Amendment 35 will amend the requirement for Bòrd na Gàidhlig reporting—the requirement that will be inserted into the 2005 act by section 8 of the bill—so that Bòrd na Gàidhlig must report on a two-yearly basis on progress towards meeting the objectives and targets that are set out in the national Gaelic language strategy.”
“I just wanted to explain that because I know that some members—not Mr Marra—had some questions about why we were happy to support his amendment, and that is the reason. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Michael Marra to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 32. Michael Marra: I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 32. Amendment 32 agreed to. Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Michael Marra]—and agreed to. Section 8—Reporting on Gaelic language strategy, standards and duties The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 5 is on reporting on Gaelic language strategy and plans. Amendment 35, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 36 to 38. Ross Greer: The bill will deliver new interventions and build on initiatives that are already in place.”
“We agree that prompt action needs to be taken to address the needs of Gaelic-speaking communities and I am happy to support the amendments. I am aware that, with amendments 32 and 33, we are back to a bit of a debate between “must” and “may”, which Pam Duncan-Glancy introduced earlier. It may be helpful to explain why we are supportive of amendments 32 and 33. We are changing “must” make regulations back to “may” make regulations, because there is now an obligation to lay the draft regulations within a deadline. That makes the use of “must” unnecessary. It is clear that there is a duty, because the regulations need to be laid by that deadline. It is also expected that further regulations will need to be made in the future using that provision.”
“Following discussions with the Deputy First Minister subsequent to stage 2, I am pleased to have arrived at a compromise with the Scottish Government on these amendments while still maintaining the sense of urgency that is essential to ensure that survival of the Gaelic language. I move amendment 32 and I ask members to support all the amendments in the group. 16:30 Kate Forbes: I thank Mr Marra for lodging these amendments and for explaining their importance. I agree that the standards are going to be important for many areas of Gaelic activity—in fact, I often think that many of the questions that have been raised over the course of the bill will be answered in the standards. We need to ensure that they reflect the needs of the speaker community and, as these amendments require, we need to ensure that they are available without delay.”
“The Scottish Government often takes a very generous approach to its own deadlines, with nebulous targets such as “autumn” giving little certainty to the Parliament or to the wider public. Deadlines are also allowed to slip, as members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, of which I am a member, can attest to, given the particularly high number of important financial documents that are overdue. I believe that the Government should be transparent about what it is trying to achieve and when it expects to achieve its outcomes. Constant shifting of goalposts erodes public trust and wastes time that the Gaelic language can ill afford. My amendments in this group therefore set a deadline of one year after the act comes into force, by which time the Scottish ministers must lay draft Gaelic language standards before the Parliament.”
“Michael Marra: My concern—and my party’s principal concern—with the bill’s provisions is that they are not commensurate with the existential threats that the Gaelic language faces. In its stage 1 report, the Education, Children and Young People Committee stated that the Gaelic language is in “a perilous state”. To put it simply, we do not have time to waste. It is 20 years since the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed. I fear that, in another 20 years, there might not be a living Gaelic language left to save. My amendments in this group aim to introduce specific deadlines so that the Government and other relevant bodies do not lose sight of the urgency of these matters once the legislation has been passed.”
“Ross Greer: At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to clarify that the public bodies that must have regard to the Government’s Gaelic language strategy should include the post-16 education bodies, Scottish Rail Holdings and Scottish Water. As the cabinet secretary said, I have lodged amendment 59 simply for the sake of consistency, to ensure that those public bodies also have regard to the Scots language strategy. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Deputy First Minister, do you have anything to add by way of winding up? Kate Forbes: I have nothing to add, thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendment 31 agreed to. Section 6—Gaelic language standards The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 4 is on Gaelic language standards. Amendment 32, in the name of Michael Marra, is grouped with amendments 33 and 34.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 3 is on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 31, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 39 to 42, 50 to 57, 59 and 61. Kate Forbes: Amendment 31 seeks to make a minor correction. It will adjust terminology to ensure consistency throughout the bill. It will also reorder sections that were inserted by amendment at stage 2 so that they follow a more logical order. I will be happy to support amendment 59, in the name of Ross Greer, which would make the position on which public authorities must have regard to our language strategies consistent between Gaelic and Scots. I move amendment 31. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to speak to amendment 59 and the other amendments in the group.”
“As we know, the Government’s targets across a wide range of policy areas have done nothing to guarantee progress. However, I believe that having targets in this context will strengthen the bill somewhat and keep the focus on the survival of our ancient language. We cannot wait a decade for another census to happen. There is every chance that that would be too late. I ask all members to support amendment 30. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite the Deputy First Minister to wind up. Kate Forbes: Amendment 30 captures precisely what the Scottish Government wishes to see happen in the years to come. I will be happy to support amendment 30, in the name of Michael Marra. Amendment 24 agreed to. Amendments 25 to 28 moved—[Kate Forbes]— and agreed to. Amendment 29 not moved. Amendment 30 moved—[Michael Marra]—and agreed to.”
“School figures, the survey of school subject availability and the data on achievement of curriculum for excellence—ACEL—would all help to establish how much education and training are taking place in, or through the medium of, the Gaelic language. The Scottish Government could conduct an analysis of economic and social data linked with Gaelic from bodies such as MG Alba and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which would contribute to an understanding of the number of businesses and other bodies that use Gaelic as their main language. The Scottish Government could also do more to compile data on the economic and social impact of Gaelic. MG Alba and others already collect and publish data that would paint a picture of activity relating to Gaelic culture.”
“When I met the Deputy First Minister in February, her officials supplied a list of data that was already available to the Scottish Government and that would not require legislative change. We believe that there is also common ground in relation to not wishing to impose a great burden on public bodies in that regard, while trying to meet our shared ends and ensure that we have a robust set of rules. The categories that my amendment 30 proposes are covered by that pre-existing data. Having suitable questions in the Scottish social attitudes survey and the Scottish household survey would help to capture the number of people, including the number of children, in our households who use the Gaelic language.”
“However, in order for targets to be effective, they must be meaningful, and I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s decision to not move amendment 29, in her name. Amendment 29 is a broader amendment. It uses the words “numbers of persons with Gaelic language skills”, which could include people who have spent a few hours on Duolingo. That would do nothing to arrest the decline of Gaelic as a living language in traditional Gaelic-speaking areas. If anything, I believe that it risks masking a precipitous and potentially terminal decline of Scotland’s ancient language. Concerns were raised at stage 2 about the Scottish Government’s capacity to collect the relevant data for reporting on Gaelic, including targets.”
“Members on these benches have been concerned from the outset about the scope of the bill. We do not believe that it is commensurate with the scale of the challenge that the Gaelic language faces. Experts have warned that, without very significant intervention, Gaelic could cease to exist as a living language in as little as a decade. Where possible, my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy and I have sought to strengthen the bill. That is what my amendment in this group seeks to do. I am glad that the Scottish Government now agrees with Scottish Labour that targets definitely need to be written into the bill, and I echo the Deputy First Minister’s words about our engagement and the pragmatic and open discussions that we have had to that end. I therefore welcome amendments 24 to 28, in the name of Kate Forbes.”
“In making the migration system sustainable and able to command the confidence and support of the public, we must also recognise that any immigration system has to be safe, legal and well managed. That is absolutely essential. Eleven months ago, the UK Labour Government inherited from the previous Government a chaotic, broken system that did not work for anyone. Without any doubt, fixing that system will take time. It is right that the UK Government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that immigration is safe, that it is fair and, crucially, that it meets the needs of our economy. Meeting the needs of the economy is part of the basis of making sure that migration enjoys public support, which is absolutely crucial.”
“As we have heard, Scotland has long been—and remains—a welcoming country to people who want to settle here, to join our community, to enjoy this beautiful country and to contribute to our shared life. My family arrived as migrants to this country in the 19th century, coming from a country that was ravaged by famine. They worked in the jute mills of Dundee and made a life, a home and a community. That is my family’s story, which I know is echoed in many MSPs’ family stories. It is the story of people who have contributed massively to our nation’s story and to the communities that we live in today. Scottish Labour celebrates the many ways in which our country has been enriched by those who have made Scotland their home.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact of the reported reduction in Scottish attainment challenge funding for Dundee City Council. (S6O-04786)”
“Only Michael Marra seems to think that the fiscal framework is perfect and that we need no changes, because, fundamentally, he does not want any additional powers or influence for the Scottish Parliament. That is for Michael Marra to defend; this Government will argue for more powers and more resources for Scotland’s Government and for Scotland’s people.”
“The average real-terms growth rate in day-to-day public spending will be 0.8 per cent a year, which is lower than the average for UK Government departments. Had it matched UK department levels, we would have more than £1.1 billion by 2028-29 in our finances. Therefore, let us not get too carried away by the spending review, because the facts are quite different. We see the limitations of the fiscal framework, whether in relation to employer national insurance contributions or the winter fuel payment. Those examples show that the fiscal framework is not fit for purpose in relation to how we navigate through the UK Government’s decisions. It was good to reverse the decision on the winter fuel payment, which will have an impact on our block grant.”
“The senior UK politician who Ash Regan referred to is, of course, Nigel Farage, who shares the same position as the Scottish National Party in wanting to get rid of the Barnett formula—a formula that has guaranteed, in the past hour alone, an additional £9.1 billion of spending for Scottish public services. On 20 May, the cabinet secretary was unable to tell the Finance and Public Administration Committee anything at all as to what the cost of her policy of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland’s budget would be. Does the cabinet secretary believe that policies should be costed before they become Government policy? Shona Robison: First, let me moderate Michael Marra’s excitement about today’s spending review.”
“The complexity of care reform is not an excuse to walk away from it; it is the very reason why we must rise to the challenge. We cannot lose sight of the people who are at the heart of the reforms, because they are counting on us—and will continue to count on us—to get this right. 18:38”
“I hope that the Parliament can agree to that and that the Labour Party will not drop it but will work towards a more publicly delivered care service. Public care should continue to be seen as a necessary investment in the dignity and wellbeing of our communities. If the Parliament is serious about the issue, we must treat the bill as the first step and as a foundation. That means committing to on-going dialogue with local authorities, the workforce and people who receive care. It means funding the changes that we legislate for, being honest when things do not go to plan and being open to doing things differently. I acknowledge the constructive spirit in which the Opposition and the Government have worked together between stages 2 and 3, which has undoubtedly made the bill stronger.”
“They are the product of advocacy, campaigning and hard work across the sector, in the Parliament and beyond, and we must recognise those wins. However, our job is not to rest on our laurels. We must not stop here; we must continue and deliver progress. The cracks in our social care system remain, and they have been made deeper by the years of underinvestment. We still face the same core issues: workforce pressures, fragmented structures, unclear lines of accountability and a system that too often leaves people navigating complexity when they are at their most vulnerable. The ambition to bring more of the care sector into public hands should not be dropped. It should be pursued strategically and incrementally, recognising the financial and logistical challenges while staying true to the long-term goal.”
“For all its difficulties, the bill has laid the groundwork for progress. It is not the transformation that many had hoped for, but it is a step towards a more equitable and consistent care system in Scotland. It will introduce important changes that will make a real difference to people’s lives, and I do not want to lose sight of that. Many members have spoken movingly about Anne’s law, and I pay tribute to her family. In addition, I think back to the confusion and desperation of our constituents during the Covid crisis. We have made really important progress today. The improved rights for unpaid carers and the strengthening of independent advocacy are not small things and they should not be overlooked. They are important changes that this Parliament has made.”
“However, that did not need a process this long and at such expense to the Scottish taxpayer. The bill will not deliver the lasting and positive legacy of fit-for-the-future, high-quality care that Nicola Sturgeon promised back in 2020. With her anti-Midas touch, this landmark legislation has turned to mud. Next year, Scots can call time on the incompetence, chaos and failure of the SNP by joining the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse in electing a Scottish Labour Government that will set a new direction for Scotland and get our health and social care system back on its feet. 18:35 Mark Ruskell: As we conclude the final stage of the bill, what matters most is what happens next: how the legislation is implemented, how it delivers for the people it is meant to serve and how we respond to the many challenges that remain.”
“That chaos, incompetence and direct negligence has come to typify every significant piece of legislation that has passed through the Parliament in this session: the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill and the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. It is no wonder that Scotland’s budget is in such a mess and the SNP’s legislative agenda for this session is in tatters. Ultimately, the legislation that will pass this evening will result in some very modest gains that have been wrung out of the process by stakeholders—and I am glad that some of those stakeholders are with us tonight. Scottish Labour amendments have strengthened Anne’s law, which will give care home residents the right to visits, and the right to breaks for carers.”
“At the last moment, the committee received an update, but there was an error in the updated financial information that had been received— utterly shambolic. Deciphering the true cost of the bill has been compared with assembling a jigsaw in the dark, which, frankly, is an unfair comparison. In this case, we are perhaps assembling five different jigsaws. The pieces are all different sizes and the people who made them are not even sure that they gave us all the pieces in the first place. From start to finish, there has been a total lack of transparency and myriad documents that are littered with errors, making it absolutely clear that neither civil servants nor—particularly—ministers had the first clue what they were doing.”
“One of the principal reasons for that was that the Parliament’s finance committee had rejected the financial memorandum as utterly incoherent and entirely incompetent. Just a fortnight ago, minister Maree Todd and her officials returned to the finance committee with updated financial information on the unrecognisable legislation that we are debating today—or, rather, the minister came with some of the information. The public are left cross- referencing the most recent document with the original financial memorandum from 2022 and the updated version from 2023, which are three large financial documents with different timescales. Some sections measure costs across five years, some across seven years and some across 10 years. That is comparing apples not just with oranges, but with broccoli and spuds as well.”