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 12 of 16.
“Jackie Baillie set out just some of that record of SNP failure that has laid low our NHS. Martin Whitfield highlighted the record on CAMHS and the fiddling of the figures on waiting lists. I met NHS Tayside on Friday, and can absolutely confirm that, in my area, the situation is a complete mess. A new pathway is now being developed to take the kids back into CAMHS, with 4,500 children in Dundee having been thrown aside. The First Minister has spoken to some GPs and so have I: yesterday, a Dundee GP called it a disaster and a disgrace—no wonder. GPs are clear that the SNP’s closure of 25 per cent of the surgeries in Dundee and the fact that the patient list has increased by 37 per cent is creating a crisis in general practice. There have been five NHS plans in four years.”
“When he buys his own home, the hated council tax is but a distant memory, because it was scrapped by Alex Salmond and John Swinney as far back as 2007. Of course, in the far future of old age, Jimmy rests secure in the knowledge that the national care service will be there to look after him. That is the path not travelled, Presiding Officer. Instead, we are back in the real world, in which none of that is true and none of it was delivered, and in which the First Minister entreats us to believe that a corner is being turned, albeit that he is the one who has been leading us down that road for 18 years. Of course, the right question is why a corner needs turning. The answer is in the Government’s record. Every inch of that long record is John Swinney’s, and it is not addressed by this limp and lukewarm excuse for a programme for government.”
“His family are off on holiday in the summer, zooming up Scotland’s premier road—the long- since dualled A9—then heading west to catch one of Scotland’s many reliable ferries, which have real and absolutely not painted-on windows. After the holidays, Jimmy looks forward to receiving his exam certificate from the exam board, which is, of course, entirely different from the Scottish Qualifications Authority, because education secretary John Swinney meant what he said when he scrapped the body that he had told to cut the grades of the poorest kids. Craig Hoy rose— Michael Marra: No, thank you, Mr Hoy. After school, Jimmy looks forward to a career in the Saudi Arabia of renewables, with a reformed national skills programme supporting him in his ambition.”
“Today’s slimmed-down programme for government has to be compared with the long list of broken promises that defines the SNP Government. Let us imagine for a few moments the path not travelled: the imaginary Scotland in which a child—little Jimmy—cycles to school on his free bike, a free laptop in his bag, passing the newly refurbished play park, finishing a can of Irn Bru and promptly returning it to the reverse vending machine, from which he claims his 20p. Little Jimmy does not need to worry if he falls off his bike and breaks his leg; he will be immediately whisked to one of Scotland’s national treatment centres in an ambulance that was requested on the NHS app.”
“The First Minister: The answer as to why is for the very simple reason that Scottish Government ministers are addressing the issues of concern to the public, strengthening the NHS in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic and ensuring that we have the capacity to meet the needs of the public in Scotland. That is exactly what we have done in addressing the concerns of the public in Scotland and ensuring that there is more capacity and more opportunity for people to access healthcare services in Scotland. That is what the SNP Government has delivered.”
“We will have to wait to see whether anything actually happens, but it is welcome that, after just 18 years in charge of our NHS, John Swinney turned up in Dundee yesterday to say that the SNP has now agreed with Labour policy that the 8 am GP rush has to end. Who caused the problem in the first place? Could it be the SNP Government that cut the number of GP surgeries by 25 per cent? Could it be the SNP Government that increased GP patient lists by 37 per cent? If the SNP had a plan to save Scotland’s NHS from the SNP’s incompetence, we would have seen it by now. Why should anyone believe that the people who broke our NHS can be the people to fix it?”
“It will be interesting to see what the committee decides in due course. This has been an interesting and beneficial debate, but one that is perhaps only the start of work in this or future sessions to provide better, higher-quality and more timely scrutiny of both framework legislation—for which I think we have a definition—and of the legislation that comes from it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jeremy Balfour to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 16:41”
“Martin Whitfield: That intervention speaks to the requirement for scrutiny, which goes back to where I began in speaking about the definition of framework legislation and about whether we need to identify framework legislation so that we can put in place different approaches for scrutiny in the weeks, months, years or even decades afterwards. I strongly support the Government’s response that we should very carefully consider when we devolve powers to the executive to bring in legislation further down the line. There have been a significant number of good contributions—far too many to go into—which once again speaks to the importance and value of this committee inquiry. I note that one of the Government’s recommendations is for the committee to consider whether guidance should be produced.”
“I think that there is a need for an improvement in the process, particularly where we have identified framework legislation and in areas in which post- legislative scrutiny of issues including sunset clauses— Finlay Carson: Will the member take an intervention? Martin Whitfield: I am happy to do so, if it is brief. Finlay Carson: One of the key issues is the lack of clarity in primary legislation around the co- ordination of the secondary legislation and other laid documents coming forward. In relation to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, a former NFUS president told the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee that co-design was “a fig leaf for not doing anything.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 12 March 2025; c 18.] That is exactly what we are seeing with regard to that bill.”
“A number of other matters appear in the Government’s response. I welcome the significant acceptance by the Government of a lot of points in the report. I know from earlier contributions to the debate that the Government has changed, in essence, the instructions around the production of financial memoranda. I hope that, even in the relatively short period of time that we have left in this session—during which time, as Finlay Carson pointed out, we may see an unexpected level of parliamentary scrutiny—we see the benefit of those better and more meaningful financial memoranda. Although I disagree with some of what Lorna Slater articulated about the need for framework legislation, there are issues that we should consider with regard to secondary and subsequent legislation—I use that language carefully.”
“As I raised with Rona Mackay, in its response to the committee, the Government has suggested that parliamentary committees should take part in the consultation in respect of secondary legislation as well as bills. That is the position of a Government that rightly distances itself from influence over and involvement in parliamentary process of change and amendment, and I absolutely respect that. However, I would be interested to hear the minister’s views on why a scrutiny committee that is charged with holding the Government to account and expressing suggestions, ideas and opinions about a piece of drafted legislation should participate in either the co-design process or the earlier consultation, and I would ask whether involvement in that consultation could prejudice proper scrutiny.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Martin Whitfield to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. Up to five minutes, please. 16:36 Martin Whitfield: On the point that Lorna Slater has just raised about co-design and the period of time in which it happens, one of the interesting challenges that we have seen, particularly in this session of Parliament, concerns the changing nature of bills as they go through the passage of scrutiny. It is perhaps necessary to consider what it is that we want to legislate on—as articulated by Edward Mountain—and how we intend to get there before the bill is drafted and lodged for scrutiny. I want to spend a couple of minutes on that scrutiny point.”
“For example, with regard to Holyrood park, we are in the absurd position that we cannot even charge for parking or make basic changes to improve accessibility without changing primary legislation that was passed in the 1970s. Primary legislation that contains too much detail can lack flexibility, which can hurt communities, and it is difficult to get time in a crowded parliamentary schedule to change such legislation. In conclusion, I would welcome new processes to allow the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise secondary legislation and undertake effective post-legislative scrutiny of it, especially in order to resolve concerns around finances, but I welcome framework legislation as a useful tool, in some circumstances, to allow the Parliament to react effectively to a changing world.”
“The process that the member suggests, which involves doing everything in one go, would definitely be more challenging to do in terms of getting the timing right. The process of taking the powers and then agreeing with the stakeholders who are going to be affected seems to me to be sensible, because gone are the days when Parliaments can be ivory towers that impose legislation that is difficult to change. Stuart McMillan: I recommend that Lorna Slater, and all members, have regard to what Jonnie Hall of the National Farmers Union Scotland said about co-design when he gave evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Lorna Slater: Thank you for that. I will continue my point about imposing powers by primary legislation that can be difficult to change in these fast-moving times.”
“I am disappointed by Edward Mountain’s disdain for co-design, which I understand has led to better outcomes in agriculture reform for Scottish farmers than their colleagues in England. Jeremy Balfour: Briefly, I do not think that Mr Mountain is against co-design. He is asking why co-design cannot take place before a bill is brought to the Parliament so that the Parliament can vote on it, rather than the co-design being done after the bill is passed, when there is no democratic scrutiny of it. Lorna Slater: I understand the question, and Michael Marra raised the same point. I guess that the challenge is, how can we co-design something when we do not yet know what powers we will have? Setting out a process to deal with that is challenging, and we are discussing one approach.”
“Of course, it is a worry for all of us that framework legislation might be used in subsequent parliamentary terms to do things that we might not agree with, or even undo work that we have supported, but such is the nature of the democratic process. Certainly, there are concerns in the environmental sector that the so-called Henry VIII powers in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill could be used to roll back environmental protections. Other members may have the opposite concern that they might be used to overrule the concerns of a different set of stakeholders for the purposes of nature restoration or protection. In either case, I am not sure that the Government is being entirely transparent about its intentions. A future Government may use those powers with substantially different intentions, which concerns me.”
“However, the number of parliamentary sitting days and parliamentarians are not increasing in proportion to the work that needs to be done. Something has to give if we are going to be able to make timely interventions using legislation and, indeed, if the nation is going to be able to react to the complex challenges that are ahead of us. One of the fears that I often hear voiced by Opposition parties about framework bills is that they do not know what the Government might do with them. That has always seemed to me as though it is an admission of a lack of ambition. If Opposition parties seriously imagine themselves ever being in Government, they might have a good think about how they would use those legislative powers. Finlay Carson: Will the member take an intervention? Lorna Slater: I am sorry—I have to stick to time.”
“16:31 Lorna Slater: I have enjoyed the debate, and I join Roz McCall, Martin Whitfield and others in self-identifying as a bit of a process nerd. I note the concerns expressed in the chamber and elsewhere about a perceived increase in framework legislation. There are similar concerns that the number of framework bills have been increasing in Westminster, with both the Conservative and Labour Governments finding that type of bill useful. My impression is that Governments in Scotland and elsewhere are becoming more ambitious. Governments are being expected by voters to do more and are becoming more interventionist, which I support, as we face collective challenges such as the climate and nature emergencies and chronic issues such as child poverty, which will require significant and increasing Government intervention.”
“This week, Mairi Spowage of the Fraser of Allander Institute told the Finance and Public Administration Committee that the Government’s last few budgets have been “chaotic”. The chaos is down to the decisions that have been taken by the Government. The means by which the Government’s legislative agenda impacts the growing financial chaos is, or should be, entirely in the control of the Parliament. We must ensure that that responsibility is defended and upheld in the face of a Government that has entirely lost control of the public’s money. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. I ask members to stick to the speaking time that they have agreed to. I call Lorna Slater to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens.”
“Nobody has ever been able to explain to us why there cannot be co-design before legislation is lodged and we know what we are legislating for. Michelle Thomson: [Made a request to intervene.] Michael Marra: I am afraid that I am running out of time, otherwise I would have gladly given way to Michelle Thomson. The Government’s attempt to bypass the Parliament is an issue of democratic principle as well as an issue of financial responsibility. In the past three years, we have had three emergency budgets in the Parliament, with massive in-year cuts of up to £1 billion, and we have an emerging fiscal gap that is in the billions, with apparently no plan whatsoever from the Government to get a grip of it. In this financial year alone, the social security budget is overcommitted by £1.3 billion.”
“I highlight to the minister that there remain issues with the standard procedures for when revised financial memorandums might be provided to the Parliament and at what stage that will be done, whether that is before or after stage 2. It is absolutely critical for civil servants to have clarity on that. In its submission to the inquiry, the Finance and Public Administration Committee also raised the issue of co-design—it seems that we pass a law and then decide what it might, could or should mean later, which is a recipe for an unholy mess. In my view, that tendency is about politics first and headlines at all costs. It is what you do when the thinking has not been done but you need to say something about a policy area that must be progressed.”
“The national care service saga is one illustration of the fact that this Government has no grip on the finances in its legislation, but there are many more examples, including the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill and the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. The issues that have been raised through the scrutiny of those financial memorandums were laid out in part by my colleague Michelle Thomson and in part in the letter that was sent to the minister. The minister rightly responded that the Government accepted the recommendations in the letter regarding some of the technical means on which to judge some of those areas.”
“Thank goodness that the Finance and Public Administration Committee, prior to my involvement in it, rejected the original estimates as being incompetent. They were certainly proven to be so in the subsequent evidence that was received by the committee. Had the committee not rejected that original financial memorandum, Parliament would have risked passing a bill that would have left the taxpayer on the hook for nearly £4 billion. I gently say to the minister—I know that he is particularly keen to make the point about the amount of bills—that the £4 billion cost for the taxpayer that would have resulted from one bill is reason enough to look at the matter very carefully.”
“On 23 January 2024, a civil servant, much to the embarrassment of ministers, told our committee that the cost envelope for the national care service framework bill was not the £1.2 billion that was originally set out in that financial memorandum but was, in fact, upon revision, an eye-watering and mind-boggling £3.9 billion. The previous minister, Kevin Stewart MSP, on 8 November 2022, came to committee and quibbled with a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimate of £1.5 billion, apparently entirely unaware that the real cost was nearly three times that. The nature of that bill—legislation first and any policy detail to be included much later, if at all— made it in effect impossible for the civil servants who were provided with the bill to cost it.”
“He hosted a taxpayer-funded meeting in Glasgow yesterday, warning against the rise of anti-democratic forces in Scotland, so we should take him at his word in that regard. Stephen Kerr: I will be very brief. The problem with the Covid situation is that the Government still has all those emergency powers, with no sunset clauses whatsoever. Michael Marra: I certainly take that point on board. That is part of the reason why today’s report is important. As deputy convener of the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee, I have witnessed many issues with legislation that has been lodged by the Government in this parliamentary session, particularly in relation to financial memorandums.”
“That is the question that Mr Kerr just put to colleagues in the Government. The Scottish National Party is asking us to assume that every Government will always act with good faith. I would say that such an assumption is at best naive. The potential for future Governments of any stripe to misuse powers should in itself be the reason to have the highest level of safeguards. History and, increasingly, the present day, are replete with warnings against the removal of legislative standards and breaches of long- standing political norms. Indeed, the First Minister has spent the entirety of the past week talking to the country as much as he possibly can about the possible threats in that regard.”
“I will start where Mr Kerr ended. There are emergency circumstances in which the Government should be able to process laws and regulations that impact citizens without the standard parliamentary scrutiny. At all other times, Parliament judiciously exercises what is a time- limited power granted to us by the citizenry. However, I stress the word “emergency”. The Covid emergency was the most recent example. Some of us fear that the Government’s tendency at that point has continued into this parliamentary session. Stephen Kerr rose— Michael Marra: I want to make some progress, Mr Kerr. When extending the powers of Government, the issue lies not with how we might perceive the current Government to be using those powers but with how any future Government might use them.”
“I thank all members for their contributions to the debate today. I acknowledge the very significant anxiety of many citizens about the reform of social security. Some of the proposals that are set out in the green paper consultation are challenging and are rightly the source of much debate, analysis and consideration, as Paul O’Kane said in his opening speech in today’s debate. Frankly, none of this is easy. However, we are clear that change is necessary and required.”
“That is why we are introducing specialist employment support for disabled people for summer 2025, which will enhance existing provision and support more disabled people to access and sustain meaningful employment. That is in contrast to the contradictory plans of the UK Government, which is looking to push as many people as possible into employment while simultaneously cutting the number of work coaches who are available to support people. That, to me, does not make sense. We are also using our limited budget to mitigate some of the most damaging policies of the UK Government—”
“The investment that we have made is around £1.3 billion more than the funding that we received from the UK Government for social security, and it supports around 2 million people in total. I make it clear that our principles of dignity, fairness and respect also apply to our employability system, and our aim is to support people into the right job for the right circumstances at the right time. Through our no one left behind approach, person- centred employability services are available in every local authority for people of all ages who experience structural barriers to participation in the labour market. We want our services to be seen as opportunities for participants, not as threats. Furthermore, we are committed to halving the disability employment gap and supporting disabled people to access and sustain fair work.”
“It is an investment because we know that inequality is bad for our health, our communities and our economy. In the recently passed budget, the Scottish Government made a conscious decision to invest in social security for people in Scotland by investing £6.9 billion in benefits and payments for 2025-26. Behind that big number are the disabled people, the carers and the low-income families whom we support. When people question how much we spend on social security in Scotland, they need to be honest with everyone, if they are asking us to cut that amount, that they are asking us to cut the amount of support that we give to disabled people, carers and low-income families. They need to be up front with everyone about which of those groups they would wish to see those cuts coming down upon.”
“We need to take time to work through and fully consider the significant impact that those cuts will have, but it will be significant. The Scottish Government estimates that the proposed reforms will result in the loss of £400 million from the block grant adjustment by 2029-30. That said, I reassure the people of Scotland that the Scottish Government’s social security system will ensure that our fundamental principle of treating people with dignity, fairness and respect will continue to guide our approach. While the UK Government is focusing on reducing the amount of money that is spent on supporting disabled people and others who need help, this Government believes that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland, in our communities and in all our futures.”
“I am delighted to say that, yesterday, we completed the national launch of the pension age disability payment, which means that people of any age in any part of Scotland will be able to apply for disability assistance from Social Security Scotland, not the DWP. That is an important distinction, as our approach is to ensure that disabled people get the support that they are entitled to, while making sure that the application process is as straightforward as possible. Once an application has been submitted, it will go through a robust decision-making process. In 2025-26, we will invest £3.6 billion in the adult disability payment, which is £314 million more than we are forecast to receive from the UK Government through the block grant adjustment. However, the UK Government’s planned cuts will lead to further cuts to our budget.”
“Macmillan Cancer Support, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Scope, Mencap, Citizens Advice and dozens more all wrote a joint letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the eve of her statement, in which they urged her to change course. On the day of the statement, End Child Poverty said: “This government came to power with a commitment to significantly reduce the numbers of children living in poverty. Yet ... the recent proposed cuts to disability payments ... will ... pull more families into hardship.” Despite our fixed budget and our limited powers, we have transformed social security provision in Scotland. We have established a radically different system that is actively and vigorously working to ensure that as many people as possible get the support that they are entitled to.”
“I also find it astonishing that, in undertaking this exercise, the UK Government is balancing the books on the shoulders of vulnerable people and that it is doing so because of so-called fiscal rules, which are nothing short of totally self-imposed. That point, which has been made by many leading economists, has been echoed by former Bank of England deputy governor Charlie Bean, who described the Government’s position as “a frankly pretty ridiculous position”. The UK Government’s position is ridiculous, but it will also be calamitous for those who will be affected. It is no wonder that the charities and stakeholders who know most about the impact that the cuts will have have rightly called on the UK Government to think again.”
“A particularly damning aspect of an already damning set of circumstances is the fact that 96 per cent of the families who will be made worse off include a disabled person. It is astonishing that, despite the UK Government’s stated aim of reducing child poverty, its analysis estimates that the reforms will push a further 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into relative poverty by 2029-30. Where that leaves the current UK Government task force on child poverty, I honestly do not know. Given that half of all children in poverty in Scotland live in a household with a disabled person, the proposed changes threaten to seriously undermine the progress that we are making here in Scotland to end child poverty, and they should have every member of this Parliament united in condemnation of the cuts and their impact.”
“The current consultation has been described by Benefits and Work as “an entirely bogus” consultation in which the Department for Work and Pensions refuses to consult “on almost everything that matters most to claimants.” It is important to examine in detail just how damaging the proposed cuts are and the impacts that they will have, not only on people in Scotland but on people across the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the UK Government will cut £4.8 billion from benefits in 2029-30. The DWP’s impact assessment highlights that, by 2029-30, 3.2 million families will lose out as a result of the proposed cuts, with each family losing an average of £1,720 per year.”
“The decisions that the UK Government has taken with its publication of “Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper” and its subsequent spring statement not only weaken the UK social security system but target some of the most vulnerable people who rely on it. People who do not meet the new personal independence payment threshold will receive far less than they would otherwise be entitled to and will be subject to pressure to enter the workforce, despite the challenges that society puts in their way. The changes to PIP were announced by the UK Government in advance of any proper consultation.”
“He apologised! Shirley-Anne Somerville: Oh, he apologised, I hear Mr Marra saying from a sedentary position. Well, that makes it fine, does it not? That makes it absolutely fine to say things like that, or even to have those thoughts about a disabled person. Such language also increases the barriers to accessing support that people are entitled to. I am encouraged by the amount of cross-party opposition to the UK Government’s rhetoric. I welcome comments from some Labour MSPs and MPs who have stood firm in their values and called on the UK Government to scrap these immoral plans. I am saddened, however, that a number of them have remained silent.”
“One in six Scots are on waiting lists, and there is chaos in A and E, with 1,040 patients waiting for more than 12 hours in the past week alone. The scandal of delayed discharge is costing Scotland nearly £1.7 billion. People are remortgaging their house or taking out loans to pay for private cataract, hip and knee operations and even for chemotherapy. That is the record of this Government. Can we hear some solutions to the Grampian situation tonight? 18:24”
“I was contacted today about that, and there have been comments about it in the chamber previously. The First Minister has been very critical of the situation in NHS Tayside, where the child and adolescent mental health service for diagnosis of autism and ADHD has been stopped. The situation in Grampian is very similar. Does the cabinet secretary share the First Minister’s concerns about how such changes are being made? Services are being closed entirely, so it looks as though people who have already been on waiting lists for a long time will be on waiting lists in perpetuity. It is abundantly clear that the situation in NHS Grampian is neither safe nor sustainable, but it serves as a microcosm of what is happening in Scotland’s NHS on the SNP’s watch.”
“There has been a 9 per cent increase in the number of over-65s in the NHS Grampian region in the past five years, and acute and social care need come with that. However, Scotland’s ageing population is not news. It has not happened overnight; indeed, it has been long modelled and predicted for many years. A serious approach from the SNP Government would have been to change the services and prepare for it but, over 18 years, the Government has simply not done so. While I have time, I will come on to another area of the health and social care partnership’s work. I have been contacted by constituents who were informed that the adult autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment service, which is run by the partnership, was closed on 31 March.”
“We have heard about some of the challenges as a result of the cuts to the health and social care partnership, particularly in Aberdeenshire. I have received an awful lot of communication from constituents on that. I share Mr Ross’s concerns about the Huntington’s situation and the acute need of people in the area, given the higher levels of need among people in the region. It would be good if that issue could be revisited, and I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary in closing about what he is doing to support those calls. I say to Mr Stewart that it is not a case of just reacting now. In some places, things are happening, but we know that a large part of the issue relates to the region’s ageing population.”
“That will only be exacerbated by the series of cuts to social care and community services as health and social care partnerships grapple with financial difficulties and budget cuts. Kevin Stewart: There is innovation but, unfortunately, that innovation is often not exported. The problem with delayed discharge, for example, is that the innovation that is taking place in Aberdeen is not being exported to Aberdeenshire and Moray. Doing that would make sense and stop suffering. Michael Marra: Mr Stewart makes a fair point, which I was going to come to. I think that Mr Ross also agreed that there is a question about what is being shared between city and shire. The cabinet secretary has recognised that and has set out that there are mechanisms by which such learning can take place, but we need to see evidence of it happening.”
“The loan was required despite the health board having made £46.2 million of savings in the year to February 2025. The board appears to be burning through money just to stand still. Although the loan is required to keep the lights on, the Scottish Government must work with NHS Grampian to determine what is going wrong and to urgently set out a plan to make things better. That seems to be the consensus across the chamber today. It is the SNP’s refusal to interrogate, innovate and introduce any real and meaningful reform that leaves Scotland’s NHS lagging behind and NHS Grampian using X-ray machines and MRI scanners that are decades old and prone to breaking down. The crisis in social care in the north-east has been touched on. It means that patients are kept in hospital for far too long.”
“I, too, thank Douglas Lumsden for securing the debate. I echo his and other members’ tributes to the staff of Grampian health board and their work to support constituents in the region. The declaration of a critical incident at Aberdeen royal infirmary in November 2024 crystallised what was already known to many people across the north-east—that NHS services in Grampian are just one bad night away from collapse. Any increase in demand can send hospitals into crisis, with ambulances diverted across the region in wintry weather. All of that is happening while the health board plunges further into financial difficulties, as Mr Lumsden set out. Earlier this month, it was reported that the Scottish Government will lend a further £67 million to NHS Grampian, on top of an existing loan for 2023-24, which takes the total loan to £92.2 million.”
“On 19 March, the management of the University of Dundee and the leaders of the Scottish Funding Council committed to the Parliament to providing a new recovery plan for the university within two weeks. That deadline passed yesterday, but there is no new plan. That could not be more urgent, because every day that passes without a plan further imperils the most important institution in my city. There is a complete absence of leadership. When will a voluntary severance scheme open, and when will we see a new plan?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure adequate provision of teaching staff in secondary schools in Dundee. (S6O-04535)”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Tuesday 22 April 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Scottish Government Debate: The International Situation followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 23 April 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs followed by Scottish Government Debate: UK Government Welfare Reforms followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 24 April 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills followed by Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee Debate: Inquiry into Framework Legislation and Henry VIII Powers followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time Tuesday 29 April 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Scottish Government Business followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 30 April 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.10 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 1 May 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Net Zero and Energy, and Transport followed by Scottish Government Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time (b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 21 April 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-17059, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business motion, is: For 88, Against 28, Abstentions 0.”