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 15 of 16.
“The budget delivers on our programme for government commitments for health, with £125 million to fund the real living wage for our adult social care workers, £5 million to provide short breaks for carers and more than £13 million to support growth in the independent living fund. It supports spending by the Scottish Government and NHS boards of £1.3 billion for mental health services, more than doubling direct programme investment since 2020-21—”
“The 2025-26 Scottish budget also contains £200 million to reduce waiting lists and increase capacity, including to help support the reduction of delayed discharge, supporting recovery initiatives such as frailty units and expanding the hospital at home programme to ensure that, by March 2026, no one will wait more than 12 months for a new out-patient appointment or day-case treatment. With that investment, we are working closely with health boards to support the implementation of alternative pathways and initiatives to support people being seen more quickly and to increase capacity to ensure sustainability. The budget also provides £2.2 billion of investment in primary care. That investment will deliver essential reform, improve capacity and patient access in local communities and reduce demand on acute services.”
“It would be completely unacceptable for our public services to suffer as a result of that change in reserved taxation. Turning to what the 2025-26 Scottish budget will deliver for Scotland’s public services, I begin with my own portfolio of health and social care. Our health and care services are an essential pillar of our public services, and will be supported next year with record investment of £21.7 billion. That includes £16.2 billion for health boards, representing a 3 per cent cash uplift and a real- terms increase on their baseline funding—boards’ resource funding, which has more than doubled since 2006-07. It also includes £139 million of additional investment across NHS infrastructure to support improvement and renewal.”
“We have called on the UK Government to fully fund those costs. However, the Treasury plans to provide us with a much lower Barnett share, which is likely to leave us some £300 million short, as it fails to take account of the fact that we have a larger public sector per person than other parts of the UK. It feels as though Scotland is now being punished for having decided to employ more people in the public sector and to invest in key public services. We have a range of public sector employers, including the national health service, the police and local authorities, which urgently need clarity on this to inform their spending decisions from April. It is therefore essential that the Treasury fully funds those additional costs for Scotland’s public sector, rather than just giving a much lower- value Barnett share of the spending in England.”
“I am glad to hear that the cabinet secretary welcomes the additional investment from the Labour Government in public services in Scotland. How would he pay for that if he rejects all means by which those moneys are raised? Neil Gray: We have not rejected all means. We have taken responsibility here in Scotland and raised revenue through our more progressive income tax policy, which means that we have more than £1.7 billion available to us that we would not have had otherwise. There were choices available to Michael Marra’s colleagues in Whitehall that they chose not to take. Instead, they took an approach that is an attack on jobs and an attack on growth and is going to hammer our public services here in Scotland. Michael Marra should stand up to the Westminster Government for taking that approach.”
“Managers should not be allowed to choose which of their promises to keep and which to break.” Surely the First Minister can tell them today that six years of delays and excuses are entirely unacceptable, and that NHS Tayside should finally get its act together.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a member of the GMB union. In October last year, I raised with the First Minister the case of NHS Tayside district nurses who have been waiting six years for their job grading to be honoured. Shona Middleton and Cathy Fugaccia toiled through the pandemic and served the public of Tayside day in, day out, and they are with us in the public gallery today. Shona has said: “We are nurses not political campaigners and would much rather not have to go to Holyrood but we refuse to give up. It is not just about us. It is about all NHS Scotland staff being treated with fairness and respect.”
“To illustrate that, the Labour Government has today announced that the skills passport trial will take place in Aberdeen, after years of delay. After years of people in other parties just talking about it, Labour is getting on and getting the job done. 16:38”
“If anything, the processes and the changes to them will ensure that communities have a voice at an earlier stage. In all that, it is critical that we tell communities why such projects have to happen. That is not just about the imperative of dealing with climate change, as very urgent as that is; it is important to Scotland's industrial future. Mr Matheson could have gone a bit further in explaining that that industrial development is critical to his Government’s vision for the future of Scotland’s economy. This is not something that is being done to Scotland—it is a full partnership between two Governments to develop an industrial base for our country’s future. To secure the domestic supply chain and industrial development, we must ensure that the grid is in place.”
“That is why I brought SSEN representatives to the Parliament this week—so that members from across the chamber could ask them questions, put those kinds of issues to them and engage with the developers and the farmers, who are the people who are selling and speculatively opening up their land to those forms of development. In that way, members can have conversations with those people about whether such developments will actually happen. Let us be absolutely clear that the proposed reforms to the planning system will not take away the right to consultation. Both Governments are clear that the intention is to improve and not remove that process. The current process is inefficient, and it does not meet the timescales that we require if we are to realise the great potential that we have. Communities must have a voice in projects.”
“However, what I have not done is to pretend to people that there is an alternative that can easily be attained for them, in the way that Mr Lumsden has set out today. I say to Graham Simpson—time is short or I would have intervened to make the point to him— that I have been approached by people who are concerned about the cumulative impact on particular geographies. There are many applications, and Mr Simpson is right in his observations about them. However, we know that the planning permission applications that are being put forward are speculative and beyond capacity. We must make it clear to residents that far from all those applications will be granted. Certainly, they will not all be advanced to the point that they are used. Clarity on that for citizens is absolutely critical.”
“That was before the arrival of Russell Findlay and Douglas Lumsden to their current positions and before the threat of Reform. We can see the effect of that in the motion that the Conservative Party has lodged for debate today. It is the responsibility of politicians and Governments to set out clearly our transition to net zero and the kind of economy that we need and to build the public’s confidence in that, because it is essential to our country’s future. I have sat in the living rooms that Douglas Lumsden describes, I have walked the fields with members of the public in the north-east of Scotland, and I have made sure that there were changes to the proposed alignments in parts of the north-east.”
“The energy transition will require the most significant upgrades to our energy infrastructure in decades. Mr Matheson set some of that out very well. If we are to realise the potential of our offshore wind capacity, which is a huge opportunity for our economy, we will need to build that capacity for the decades to come. As has been set out, this is a long-term shared project of both the UK and the Scottish Governments. That is why it was so disappointing that, when we debated the matter on 2 May 2024, members of both governing parties in the UK and Scotland refused to set out fully and explain that they were willing partners in this project that is bringing disruption to many parts of the country. In that debate, I warned about the temptations of the populist right.”
“People have a right to be involved in the decision- making process and to have their concerns addressed. We need a Scotland-wide energy strategy that sets out how many projects are required and where they are needed. That would be a positive outcome of the reforms that are to come. Battery storage will be needed, but we must use the pause that is now in place to get it right. 16:30”
“Will the member give way? Craig Hoy: [Made a request to intervene.] Graham Simpson: I apologise, but I will not be taking any interventions. Many of the projects in Scotland sit with the Scottish Government’s shadowy energy consents unit, which is taking the decisions, rather than with local councils, as is the case in England. Once NESO has shaken things out, we will need clarity from the ECU and from the Government on the criteria for agreeing to or not agreeing to developments. For example, some of the potential developments in my region are in green-belt land. What is the ECU’s stance on that? We simply do not know. We need a transparent process for involving people and showing what community benefit will look like. I hope that the Scottish Government will publish its conclusions on that soon. The current top-down approach must end.”
“Part of the question that members have to answer today is where the money would come from. The SNP has opposed every revenue- raising measure that the UK Labour Government has proposed, such as a windfall tax on oil and gas giants, ending VAT exemption on private schools, and increasing employers’ national insurance contributions. The First Minister’s suggestion that income tax should be raised elsewhere in the UK would have reduced Scotland’s block grant by at least £636 million. I presume that the First Minister hopes that people will see the headline but not ask too many questions. I commend members for the many heartfelt speeches that have been made today, and I particularly commend the campaigners who have come to seek justice. I hope that Parliament speaks with one voice today. 16:39”
“Mr Marra, please continue. Michael Marra: There have been some technical difficulties today, and I am sure that Christine Grahame recognises that. For the sake of clarity, I will decline the intervention at this point. Christine Grahame: Thank you, Mr Marra. Michael Marra: It is, frankly, disingenuous and irresponsible for any member of the SNP or the Government to suggest anything other than that there are significant financial challenges. None of that diminishes the reality for the WASPI women, but when the cabinet secretary states that the only burden is a moral one, that is not realistic or even true. In October, ahead of the UK Labour budget, the SNP called for an additional £70 billion of spending. Those were outlandish and unrealistic spending demands that would have bankrupted the country and crashed the economy all over again.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: What is your point of order, Ms Grahame? Christine Grahame: My point of order is that I am being denied the right to intervene because of electronic faults that are none of my doing. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Grahame, that is not a point of order. You pressed your button to request an intervention. The request was declined by the member. As you well know, that is within the rights of the member who is speaking. Christine Grahame: I am sorry, but the light is not coming on, despite me pressing the button. My request-to-speak button has come on, and I have not touched it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Christine Grahame, I ask you to resume your seat, please. It is coming up on my monitor that you have pressed the button to request to intervene, but you have not had that request granted.”
“They announced policies that they knew the country could not afford and ran down the clock to the election so that they could leave a new Government to pick up the pieces. They left behind an unholy mess. The cognitive dissonance that is on display from the Opposition today beggars belief. Kevin Stewart: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: No, thank you, sir. The UK Labour Government is getting on with cleaning up the mess left by those reckless Tories, but that does not mean that there are not difficult choices. Of course there are. Christine Grahame: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to interrupt the member. All my buttons have come on now. It is as if it is playing tunes. I pressed the intervention button and it would not light up, but now they are all on.”
“I hope that members across the chamber can unite in supporting the Government’s motion—as we will do—and the Labour amendment. Shirley-Anne Somerville started out by stating that the only burden that exists here is a moral one. Christine Grahame: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: No, thank you. Of course, we must recognise the moral burden, but the idea that it exists in the absence of the burden of the economic circumstances that the country faces does not stand up to scrutiny. There is no escaping the immensely difficult economic and fiscal situation left to the UK Labour Government by the Conservatives. They crashed the economy, sent interest rates soaring and left working people to pick up the tab in higher mortgages and higher bills. They made promises that they knew they could not keep.”
“If the same type of motion was presented in Westminster, how would Scottish Labour MPs vote? Michael Marra: Many of the members that the minister talks about were at the all-party parliamentary group last week, setting out exactly the position that we have laid out today. I fully anticipate that that is exactly how they will pursue the issue in the UK Parliament if a vote is brought in the future. Kevin Stewart outlined one option that was set out in section 489 of the report, but he would do well to go on and read sections 501, 502 and 503, which set out other options. Those offer the more nuanced approach that we think should be taken, and that is what Labour’s amendment, which Kevin Stewart was so critical of, calls for.”
“The point that I am making is that what matters is what people do as a result of their apology and recognition of past mistakes. Kevin Stewart: [Made a request to intervene.] Michael Marra: No, thank you, sir. It is vital that we recognise the lessons on maladministration to ensure that it does not happen again. That is what the UK Government has said that it will do. Indeed, the PHSO has said that it is “very significant” and “welcome” that the Government has recognised that “mistakes were made” and that the secretary of state has committed to ensuring that it never happens again. Shirley-Anne Somerville: I am grateful to the member for developing his point, but, once again, he has not made clear the position of Scottish Labour MPs—the back benchers who stood beside WASPI women during the election campaign.”
“Part of today’s debate has rightly turned on the value of apologies. The SNP Government has apologised on many occasions and for many things, including historic injustices by the state, such as forced adoption, institutional abuse and more. Successive SNP First Ministers have set great store by the proper conduct of the state in recognising its responsibilities and by those apologies. Every week, the First Minister comes to the chamber to apologise for the disastrous mess that his Government has made of Scotland’s national health service, but that— Kevin Stewart: Will Mr Marra give way? Michael Marra: No—I will finish this point. That does not change the experience of a patient who has waited hour after hour in an accident and emergency department or has been treated in a hospital corridor.”
“Douglas Ross: Michael Marra has just reiterated that Paul O’Kane was speaking on behalf of Scottish Labour. Does that include Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster? Do they agree with that position? Do they—including the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Under Secretary of State for Scotland and other ministers—believe that compensation should be paid? Michael Marra: The member knows fine well how Government works, as he has been a member of the UK Government. Members of the UK Government who are members of Scottish Labour will vote with the Government position. Labour MPs across the back benches overwhelmingly support the position that Paul O’Kane and other members have laid out today. Shirley-Anne Somerville: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: I want to make some progress first.”
“I start by recognising the wrong that was done to so many women born in the 1950s, which was laid out by the independent ombudsman. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found that, by failing to alert the women to the changes, there was “maladministration” by successive UK Governments. The result is that many women were let down by the state that they fund and are constituent parts of, and in which faith has generally diminished over recent decades. In that context, it is absolutely right that the UK Government has, on behalf of the state, apologised to those women who were affected. As Paul O’Kane MSP stated at the outset of the debate today on behalf of Scottish Labour, it is also right that we recognise the grave disappointment of so many women at the lack of accompanying compensation.”
“We will continue to bear down on those costs; we have saved hundreds of millions through the measures that we have already taken. Alongside that, we will continue to shift resources in the wider system to ensure that there is a continued and increasing focus on activities that drive prevention. Michael Marra can rest assured that the work that I am taking forward on public service reform is addressing all those matters, and we will continue to communicate to the Parliament about the progress that we are making.”
“The Audit Scotland report, which is the fifth in just 15 months, calls on the Scottish Government to urgently deliver public sector reform and put the public finances on a sustainable footing. Scottish Labour welcomes the idea of a fiscal sustainability delivery plan, but can the minister assure us that it will not just be about back-office functions but proper public service reform in Scotland? Ivan McKee: We are clear that “back-office functions”, as Michael Marra calls them, are a critical part of ensuring that we free up resources to the front line. In the interest of transparency, the cost of those back-office functions across the public sector is around £5 billion, which he will know from reading the work that we have published.”
“I urge the member to make representations to the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer about that.”
“There is a record budget settlement for Scotland, with £5.2 billion extra coming to the Government. We hear a lot about what that is spent on, but does the minister recognise that the money has to be raised? What is his solution to the problem of how to raise the money that needs to be spent? Richard Lochhead: The member would be better off making representations to his bosses in London about the impact of the budget on the Scottish economy and the Scottish business community in particular. The irony is that the member often says in the chamber that he stands up for creating Scottish jobs, but businesses in Scotland are saying that the national insurance contribution increase means that they will have to lay people off, that it is a jobs tax, that it will be very difficult to cope with and that it will hit profits and jobs.”
“He is our national poet and the SNP would do well to reflect on what on earth a nationalist party is for if it is not for protecting the national poet. Clare Adamson: Will the member accept an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is concluding. Michael Marra: I am drawing to a close. Robert Burns did more than any other figure in our history to protect our national culture and language. The 1891 Kilmarnock edition of his poems was carried across the world by Scots and became our Rosetta stone, showing the fin de siècle change in our national culture from rural to urban at the end of the 19th century. His work cannot be lost to the vagaries of fashion, so what will the cabinet secretary do about that? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Alexander Stewart to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 16:44”
“Keith Brown also spoke about John McGrath’s play “The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil” and about the 7:84 Theatre Company. The most recent production of that play was done by Dundee Rep in 2016, although he may have seen a more recent revival. It appeared here at the Royal Lyceum as part of the first national tour of that play in more than 20 years. Mr Brown and I might disagree on some points in that fairly nationalist production, but it is a fine piece of theatre and a rightful provocation. However, the Dundee Rep company is now under direct threat. It makes brilliant and provocative theatre that not everyone agrees with, and that is its point. That brings me to Robert Burns and the real dismay that I felt on seeing headlines about the removal from the curriculum of Burns for stand- alone assessment in our nation’s schools.”
“I believe that members are right to refer to the challenges that are being caused by Brexit: Keith Brown and Michelle Thomson made a very good case regarding the real challenges that it presents. Neil Bibby spoke about the challenges that touring artists face in making a living in that context. There is no doubt that Brexit has had a significant and negative impact on the viability of our culture sector—one has only to listen to touring bands to hear that point being clearly made. Mr Bibby also touched on fair work and on calls by the Musicians Union to ensure that funding is cognisant of that. We all want to hear tills ringing, turnstiles clicking and footfall rising because that is absolutely critical to our towns and cities.”
“That is partly because of the lack of clarity from the national Government about when money might arrive or how much it might be, given the chaos of recent years, but is also caused by a complete lack of certainty about the amount of money that might be available from local government and by the proposed cuts to budgets that are on the table at the moment. I wrote to the cabinet secretary about that very issue and got a warm bath of a letter back. There were very nice words about investment, but absolutely no answer to my questions about when money will be confirmed and when those organisations will have clarity so that they can pay staff and can know when their doors will be open. That is absolutely critical, because it has an impact on our economy.”
“It would be good to hear a little more clarity about them in the cabinet secretary’s closing remarks. That disarray has significant consequences. Many members have illustrated the effects on their local organisations; I will do the same. Murdo Fraser rightly referred to the relationship between central and local government funding, both of which are absolutely critical to arts organisations. In Dundee, the DCA, the Dundee Rep and the Dundee Heritage Trust—which runs the Verdant Works museum, Discovery Point and the fabulous RRS Discovery—are all in precarious situations.”
“We all hope that the idea of that £5.2 billion investment will enable an end to the chaos of the cycle of broken promises that has illustrated and characterised the cabinet secretary’s tenure in office, regardless of whether it has been caused by him or by the situation in which he finds himself. Michelle Thomson: Will the member accept an intervention? Michael Marra: I will not, at the moment. Please allow me to progress a little. Many organisations have found it challenging to understand what on earth is happening or to find some kind of certainty when promises that are made one month are broken the next. We would like to see that certainty emerge through the Creative Scotland review, but—as Mr Kerr rightly pointed out—there is a lack of clarity about the terms of reference for that review.”
“Since the advent of devolution in 1999, there have been several iterations of that challenge and the tension in the way that it is undertaken and through subsidising non-conformity. I had some difficulty with Clare Adamson’s contribution in respect of the desire—as always with SNP members—to spend the extra £5.2 billion without ever realising the means by which it is to be raised. Stephen Kerr: Hear, hear. Michael Marra: Stephen Kerr is saying, “Hear, hear”. He said exactly the same as I just said himself. I understand that the issue of national insurance contributions is difficult for many organisations, but if you do not raise the money you do not get to spend it and that is at the core of the challenge in how all this works.”
“This has been a typically wide-ranging debate. It is incredibly difficult to represent the breadth of the many streams and threads of our national culture and the many interests that members and their constituents hold. Art, as Maggie Chapman said, offers the opportunity to imagine alternatives. That is part of its role as a provocation to us all, and there has been a little bit of that in the debate. Art also offers escapism and enjoyment through, for example, spending a Friday night watching a band, with a pint, which is just as important and just as much part of our national culture. Clare Adamson was right to point out that funding of the arts is always—rightly— controversial and difficult.”
“When all that is solid melts into air, we face significant problems, and the tool of the national performance framework alone is perhaps not going to help us to reach our destination. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the national performance framework— review of national outcomes. Business Motion 17:00”
“It had no real impact on the lives of the people in Fife whom he has served for decades. That should be a concern to anybody developing a new tool in this space. We should not allow it to become more of that. Michelle Thomson talked eloquently about whether we are setting an ambition and where we are headed together; other members used the phrase “north star”. There is a question as to whether the journey and the direction are as important as what might be achieved if we are never to reach a final shared destination, and that was very well put. Crucially, Michelle Thomson’s contribution also touched on what we might have thought of, just a few years or even months ago, as unalienable and self-evident truths about what is solid and reasonable, whether it is democracy or security in Europe.”
“If I am honest, that might be open to a bit of scorn in Scotland as to how it is presented, but it is a tool that tries to do much of what we are debating here, which is to try to understand whether the public feel that progress is being made. I commend it to the Deputy First Minister as an example of a tool that could be used in that regard. The core issue in the debate is the distance between political intent and organisational principle. In essence, is what we are talking about where we want to go or how we want to get there? I understand the Deputy First Minister describing how we want to use such a tool to discipline Government and the civil service to focus them on collective aims, but Alex Rowley was very clear that the operation of such a tool in Fife was a box- ticking exercise, which is literally what it became.”
“It is right to raise in this context the, I think, frankly much-abused Christie commission report, because that probably talks to a point at which there was a form of political unanimity about breaking silos by making sure that we put outcomes above inputs. On that basis, it is clear that if this was the tool that was meant to allow us to achieve that, it has not worked. When members raised issues about measurement, they were absolutely clear on that. Daniel Johnson was right to set out the tougher measures of gross domestic product per head and the Gini coefficients and the ways by which we understand whether progress is being made. In recent work in Estonia, the Finance and Public Administration Committee was introduced to something called the tree of truth.”
“It is clear from the debate that visibility is important, from Ben Macpherson bravely raising the national performance framework with people on Leith Walk when they are on their way home from a hard day at work to Craig Hoy raising it in the pub. I can assure Craig Hoy that in the Tay Bridge Bar in Dundee we speak of little else. There is a real challenge as to whether we see the framework as a vehicle for change or a tool that can be used. The Deputy First Minister is keen to say that that kind of tool should set out the kind of country that we want Scotland to be. The issue of broad unanimity and the idea of a shared aspiration that we can discipline Government on, and on which we can share priorities across political lines, is perhaps the fault line that underpins much of these issues.”
“A significant amount of the evidence that we received reflected on whether the national performance framework was clearly visible in the decision-making processes undertaken by the Government. There is a concern, which was reflected in many of the contributions today, that its visibility has reduced in the Government’s work—for instance, in the interaction and relationship between the national outcomes and the four key priorities identified by the First Minister. I detect a great amount of tension there, which was also outlined by the Deputy First Minister. Witnesses described the Scottish Government’s commitment to this kind of tool as being “patchy” and “mixed”, and they raised concerns about the prominence of the framework and how that had declined since 2007.”
“There were some suggestions about the use of clear, time-bound targets and indicators for each national outcome, a strong communication strategy to ensure that outcomes are more widely known, and a clear outline of how the outcomes both support and are in tension with each other—a suggestion that came through in much of the evidence. We have urged the Scottish Government to reflect those recommendations as clearly as it can. We also heard much—as has been reflected in the debate—about the use of data gathered from the national indicators, and how they might be used both to assess past performance and to inform future decision making. We have therefore recommended that the plan set out how data should be used to inform decision making as that will be absolutely critical if that kind of tool is to work.”
“As part of our investigation, the committee heard from the Scottish Government and said that we would welcome the commitment to produce what was to be an implementation plan—I am not exactly clear on the status of that plan, given the Deputy First Minister’s pledge to “start again”. However, the idea of marrying the national outcomes with a clear path to implementation was very much part of the committee’s considerations, and I hope that the Government will take that on board. In the evidence that we received were insights into what the implementation plan could look like.”
“I am pleased to close the debate as the deputy convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I thank members for their participation and our outstanding clerking team for their preparation of the report. The sense that I got from colleagues was that if we are to have a framework, we should know how we can we make it work better. The Deputy First Minister set out in her opening and closing remarks that she intends to start again with the process. I hope that she takes note of the many observations and of the evidence that the committee has taken in recent months, and that she intends to take into account the contributions that colleagues have made today. I will outline a bit of that evidence and then reflect on some of the debate that we have heard.”
“Furthermore, our housing completions are at a historical low. The First Minister must recognise all those issues and deliver solutions. I look forward to the meetings on the budget that will take place in the weeks to come. Scottish Labour believes that, so far, the budget has failed to set the new direction that we require for Scotland, which can now come only from a new Government in 2026. 16:51”
“However, I cannot agree with what he said about Labour’s track record on child poverty amounting to a fluctuation or a nudge of the dial; it was far more profound than that. During our previous time in Government, our approach transformed lives. However, that trend was halted in 2010, since when no Government, either at Westminster or here at Holyrood, has been able to match it or reverse what is happening. We must deal with the broad causes that many members have highlighted in the debate. The First Minister must recognise that the gap in attainment has not been closed, let alone abolished. It is at a higher level and is the greatest it has ever been. We also have a national housing emergency, with 10,000 children waking up on Christmas morning—just days ago—in temporary accommodation.”
“Secondly, we have an economic duty, which is not only to produce an economy that deals with child poverty but to recognise that the potential of any person who is lost to the lifelong impact of such poverty is reduced, or is squandered in relation to our whole country and their own community. At a time when Scotland has an ageing population and a shrinking birth rate, that is more important than ever in relation to the future of our country. The cost of child poverty is becoming ever greater. Finally, we have a moral duty to recognise the innate equal value of every child. That demands that we ask broad questions about the shape of our economy, our community and all our Government policy. Willie Rennie was right to raise drug deaths and addiction, which are huge afflictions in my home city of Dundee.”
“Rightly, what the bulk of today’s debate has focused on is the question whether we can deliver against our duties. The first of three duties that I will set out is that we have a legal duty with regard to child poverty that was set out in 2017, by far prior to the arrival in Parliament of some colleagues. Paul O’Kane set out the concerns of many experts, including the Poverty and Inequality Commission, who have said that progress on tackling child poverty has been slow or not evident at all under the Scottish National Party Government. This budget, although it will do no harm, will not change that trajectory, because it lacks the new direction that Scotland needs.”