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 4 of 16.
“Michael Marra: A motion could be lodged and a vote taken on whether the Parliament accepted the conclusions of the review. That would give some kind of legitimacy to the system and its cost. I take Mr Hepburn’s point on that, however. I will make some progress. The Scottish Government’s response to the revised financial memorandum gives me little confidence that many of the issues that I am raising have actually been addressed. Those issues were set out recently in a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee on 26 February.”
“However, I am perplexed by the very final part, because he mentioned in his contribution that his amendment provides that a report on the review would have to be “published and laid before the Scottish Parliament”, which we all understand. However, he did not mention that his amendment goes on to say that that would be “for approval by a resolution of the Parliament.” What does that mean? Michael Marra: In my view, the report should be laid before the Parliament for scrutiny, and a vote should be taken on whether it would be approved as a recommendation on the system. That is my view on the amendment, as it was drafted. Jamie Hepburn: Just to push that further, how do we approve or disapprove of a review? I am not quite following the logic.”
“Does he not think that, as well as extra costs, that needs to be looked at? Michael Marra: Of course, my colleague Mr Mason, as a member of the committee, raised those issues at the time. I understand that there is a real sensitivity in how the issue is discussed and how that might imply something about motivations on one side of the debate or the other. I do not take a position on that. However, I understand that Mr Mason has strong feelings on the issue, and he is right to put on the record the concerns that he has at this time. Jamie Hepburn: Mr Marra is legitimately laying out his concerns about the financial memorandum, but I will bring him back to his amendment 255. Again, I am quite relaxed about much of it, and I think that there might be merit in it.”
“Michael Marra: I confirm that there was no such discussion, because that particular remedy was not known at the time that the financial memorandum was scrutinised by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The implications have developed quite significantly in recent weeks—we heard the discussion last night about who knew what, where and when—but, certainly, the Finance and Public Administration Committee knew none of that information, as it was not available to us at that point in time. John Mason: I am on board with Mr Marra on a lot of this. However, he has not mentioned savings, which also came up at the Finance and Public Administration Committee. One of my fears with the bill is that, in future, Governments and the NHS could save money by encouraging early deaths.”
“John Mason: Will Mr Marra give way? Michael Marra: I will come to members in a moment. Despite Liam McArthur’s insistence that the bill should be accompanied by improvements in palliative care so that people would have a genuine choice, not a penny was identified in the financial memorandum for palliative care. I will take an intervention from the Deputy First Minister. Kate Forbes: Mr Marra talked about scrutinising the financial memorandum and he has also referenced a lot of healthcare professionals, such as doctors and nurses. Was there any discussion about the interaction between the UK Government legislating through a section 104 order with regard to employment protections and the effect on devolved finances?”
“The Royal Pharmaceutical Society Scotland described the estimated cost of £80 per dose to end life as “a huge underestimate of the actual cost”, while the Royal College of Nursing said that the financial memorandum was “largely silent on the resourcing implications for nursing, despite the Bill establishing a key role for registered nurses in the process.” Compared with the number of people who had an assisted death in places such as Queensland, the financial memorandum appeared to the committee to vastly underestimate the number of people who would seek assistance to end their life in Scotland. In addition, we found that it did not take account of Scotland’s poor health record, which could lead to higher eligibility for assisted dying. Finally, and most critically— Kate Forbes: Will the member give way?”
“As deputy convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I was involved in scrutinising the original financial memorandum for the bill, which was found to be full of holes and significant underestimates. It was also found to be largely silent on key financial implications of assisted dying.”
“My amendments 255, 313 and 314 would require the preparation and publication of an independent review of the bill’s financial implications. I lodged versions of the amendments at stage 2, and I have lodged them at stage 3 because I do not believe that a satisfactory answer has been provided on the issues that they raise. Indeed, more information has been provided by the Government in the interim, since stage 2. In my view, there is far too much that we do not know. We have discussed the fact that the bill lacks a financial model. Tonight and tomorrow, we will make decisions, as we have done in previous days, that will affect the overall costs.”
“How much money? The First Minister: Mr Marra is shouting at me, asking about the money. I just told Mr Whitfield that the proposal is fully funded. We need local authority leaders to do the right thing tomorrow, and I look forward to them doing so. Point of Order 12:53”
“When the law contemplates the ending of life, the protections around the decision must be stronger than our uncertainties and not weaker than them. Specialist scrutiny should not depend on whether a doctor happens to feel uncertain on a particular day. Rather, it should be part of the process from the beginning. My amendments would move the bill away from relying on a single practitioner’s judgment towards a process that was informed by specialist expertise and proper professional scrutiny. I took that away from what I thought was an excellent contribution yesterday from Michael Matheson, who drew on his experience related to another piece of legislation. I felt that he made a forceful contribution to our consideration of the issue.”
“That matters because such situations are rarely straightforward. As I have highlighted, prognosis can be uncertain and capacity can fluctuate. Depression can exist alongside serious illness and the circumstances surrounding a request may involve pressures and, certainly, vulnerabilities. I cannot imagine a more vulnerable individual than someone who has received a diagnosis of a terminal condition, and some of the vulnerabilities may be added to by things that are not immediately visible. If the law is to permit assisted suicide at all, we must have safeguards that are designed for the most difficult cases and not for the easiest and, perhaps, more straightforward cases, although I hesitate to use that term.”
“I remind members of evidence that I think should weigh on our minds, which has been referred to previously. Professor Scott Murray, who is an emeritus professor of palliative care at the University of Edinburgh, has pointed out that the accuracy of prognosis in such cases can be as low as 23 per cent. I hope that members are familiar with his column that appeared in The Times, in which he warned: “While those facing death cannot access the high-quality palliative care they need, such legislation risks becoming a simple and dangerous cost-saving measure.” Those are heavy and troubling words. My amendments seek to ensure that the individual would be referred to appropriately qualified specialists. One would confirm the nature of the terminal illness and another would examine questions of capacity, where that was relevant.”
“We have heard a back-and-forth debate on whether that should be an in-person assessment. To be frank, I find it mind blowing that, on something as vital as this, we would not insist on that. Ross Greer made a timely intervention about that, and it is why I lodged my amendments in the group. 16:30 Under the bill, referral to a specialist would happen only if the practitioner believed that there was doubt about eligibility or capacity. That is a heavy burden to place on a doctor and it is a thin safeguard for a decision of such consequence. Amendments 161 and 163 seek to correct that by replacing discretion with clear requirements. Under those amendments, every person who underwent an assessment would be referred to appropriately qualified specialists who could confirm the nature of the person’s terminal illness.”
“There are no plans to create such a palliative care offer across Scotland on an equal basis and, until there are such plans, the consideration of measures such as those in the bill is fraught with moral difficulty. Until that situation arises, we would not be giving people fair choices at all. That has been reiterated by a number of members who have spoken to amendments not only in the current group, but in previous groups. I will now refer directly to my amendments in the group. This group of amendments relates to an issue that Daniel Johnson raised in his remarks: the fact that, fundamentally, this comes down to doctors’ judgments. We are talking about how a request for an assisted death would be assessed. Under section 6 of the bill, a single registered medical practitioner may be required to make a life-and-death assessment.”
“At stage 1 and in our deliberations throughout the bill process, there has been a general consensus that we want access to palliative care to be increased, as Mr Kerr set out. However, does he agree that not a single line in the Scottish spending review identifies further resource for palliative care and that there is no additional money in the budget that the Parliament has just passed to expand such care? It is a matter of looking at the facts, which show that an expansion of the availability of palliative care is not going to happen. Stephen Kerr: I could not agree more with what Michael Marra has just said. These are the troubled waters that we are in. As I said, we are talking about a set of ideals that do not exist.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on action it is taking to address the use of modified e-bikes and off-road vehicles in incidents of antisocial behaviour. (S6O-05626)”
“I am very worried that, unless we define more tightly what we mean by “terminal illness” and “progressive”—indeed, I think that we should put in some additional requirements; it is not just that the person has those conditions, but that they are causing them suffering—we potentially leave ourselves open to something that is essentially discretionary. It is important that we provide these expansions. I also note that we have a short definition, whereas many other pieces of legislation have far more substantial descriptions of the conditions that make an individual eligible.”
“Ultimately, as I said in my opening remarks, we will rely on the judgment of professionals and the ability of individuals to make decisions for themselves about what they find acceptable and whether they wish to take such a significant decision. Subjectivity is at the very heart of the matter. To claim that amendments simply introduce subjectivity is to somewhat ignore what the vast bulk of the legislation will ultimately do. Most important, I say to Jeremy Balfour that he is quite right. I do not believe that this is the last time that we will talk about the possibility of judicial expansion.”
“I thank Jeremy Balfour and Pam Duncan‑Glancy for their observations. It is important that we seek to tighten the legislation. I do not wish assisted dying to be the default position, and, most important, I do not wish it to become the norm. As both members rightly pointed out, struggle and suffering are a part of many people’s daily lives— indeed, one could argue that they are a part of everyone’s daily life. Therefore, determining when someone’s condition meets a threshold is incredibly difficult. I acknowledge that it is difficult; I also acknowledge the concerns that might be raised, but if we are to pass the legislation at all, we need to understand that we are dealing with matters of subjectivity. I urge members to take great caution in suggesting that these are matters of objectivity.”
“In the Australian Capital Territory, the legislation states that a person is eligible if they are “diagnosed with a condition that, either on its own or in combination with one or more other diagnosed conditions, is advanced, progressive and expected to cause death” and that they are suffering intolerably in relation to the relevant conditions. It further clarifies that individual’s condition is advanced if it has “declined” and is not expected to improve and if “any treatments that are reasonably available and acceptable to the individual have lost any beneficial impact.” Those are the definitions in other benchmark bills, and they have been unproblematic. My amendments 136 and 1 provide additional requirements and clarifications. It is also important to clarify what we mean by “progressive” and “terminal”.”
“First, I say to Jackie Baillie that my amendments would certainly not expand the definition. My intention with amendment 1 is that the word “and” in the proposed new paragraphs makes it an additional requirement. It is not intolerable suffering instead of terminal illness or a condition’s progressive nature—it is as well as, which is very important. Regarding legal clarity, I point members to the definition in New Zealand legislation, which states that a person is eligible if they are “in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability; and … experience unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable”.”
“It must be that someone not only has a terminal condition but is nearing the end of their life, and that the condition that they find themselves in is one for which no other medical treatments can provide satisfaction. In the coming days, we will discuss other amendments that ensure that such treatments are extended to people. It is important to capture those points as best as we can in the definitions. Liam McArthur: To some extent, and without wishing to give a spoiler alert, it sounds as though Daniel Johnson is teeing himself up for amendments that we are likely to come to very shortly around the prognosis period, which speak to the concerns that he has quite legitimately articulated. Daniel Johnson: I acknowledge that. I will deal with the points that have been raised.”
“One could say—I say this without any glibness—that we all suffer from a condition that is progressive and that will limit our lives: life. A great number of medical conditions fit that definition. Simply the prognosis or diagnosis that someone has a condition from which they will not recover and that will likely kill them is sufficient for them to exercise the capacities that are set out in the bill. Liam McArthur: Will the member give way? Daniel Johnson: I will in a moment. It is really important that we add some additional protections. I regret that amendments 136 and 1 are not being considered alongside the amendments in the next group. To my mind, having a terminal condition is a necessary condition under the bill, but it is not sufficient.”
“As we heard during stage 1 evidence, doctors already regularly make such assessments, and clinical judgment should prevail over fixed definitions. On that basis, I ask Daniel Johnson not to press his amendments but, if he does, I urge Parliament not to support them. Daniel Johnson: I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. We all face a fundamental conundrum. We are being asked to ponder legislation in which the key definition is simply that a person is “terminally ill if they have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.” Save for perhaps that second last word— “premature”—that definition covers a huge range of conditions.”
“In jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, the top three end-of-life concerns that are recorded by the doctor on behalf of the patient are loss of autonomy, being less able to engage in activities that make life enjoyable and loss of dignity. Taken together, amendments 136 and 1 risk narrowing eligibility in ways that do not reflect the complex and deeply personal nature of suffering at the end of life while potentially requiring individuals to undergo treatments that they would otherwise have refused. Throughout, my policy has been that it should be for assessing doctors, with input from other professionals where necessary, and supported by guidance under section 23, to determine those aspects of the terminal illness definition.”
“Liam McArthur: The assumption that the fact that somebody is going through the process after having made a request means that they would then inevitably and automatically seek to exercise that choice immediately is not borne out by the evidence from other jurisdictions around the world. People go through a process, and it might be many months and possibly even years later that they seek to follow through with a request. At that point, there would still be the requirement to establish that capacity and consent are valid. People’s motivations are rarely singular, and symptoms that they find intolerable at the end of life might go beyond pain, such as vomiting and fungating wounds. Physical pain is not always the primary concern that is cited by dying people.”
“I ask the member to reflect on the evidence from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, which has talked about the subjectivity of diagnosis and the fact that many people who are told that they have, for example, six months to live will be alive three years later. There is a core question relating to subjectivity and objectivity in diagnosis. We will deal with that issue in discussing future amendments, but it is key to the amendments in this group, too. According to those physicians, the terms that Liam McArthur uses are equally subjective.”
“Neil Gray: We are building an NHS that is recovering from the pandemic and has turned a corner in its performance. The figures that were published today on performed operations over the past year demonstrate that. We now have eight months in a row of falling long waits, and figures today demonstrate year-on-year and month-on- month progress in activity in the health service. I therefore do not take the position that Michael Marra offers on the state of the health service. The discussion to be had next week and the week after on assisted dying is about the principle of assisted dying. We will have a discussion and debate on that, and members will have a free vote. Parliament will need to come to a position as to whether it should legalise assisted dying.”
“The Government clearly shares the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concerns about the challenge of costing the bill, which were set out in the committee’s report. We are about to vote on the most significant legislation of this parliamentary session, but fundamental details of the cost and implementation remain unclear. Last week, the Scottish Fiscal Commission highlighted the crisis that our NHS faces, stating that “Most waiting times standards are not being met”. The cabinet secretary might not want to name— or maybe cannot name —areas where he thinks there will be cuts or challenges, but can he at least acknowledge that dealing with these challenges in our NHS would be made more difficult if an as yet unspecified portion of the budget were redirected to assisted dying?”
“We must make sure that, in dealing with our national drug deaths crisis, which is a source of huge shame and regret for the country and for the Government, we deal with those things directly and appropriately. That touches on the issue of dual diagnosis and how our public services deal with mental health and addiction issues. In the conclusions of the Dundee drugs commission, which I was involved with, the issue of dual diagnosis was presented. That was many years ago, but it remains a massive problem in our locality in relation to how professionals recognise that people have dual issues and which services they need to access. All those problems are exacerbated by a prison policy that has descended into chaos under this Government. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sue Webber to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 16:39”
“I gently say to her that we are at a time when integration joint boards are being gutted by the Government—absolutely gutted. The third sector relies on our integration joint boards across Scotland, but we should recognise the severe cuts across the north-east, and particularly in Dundee. Sharon Dowey and Mark Griffin touched on the issue of first-time addicts in the prison estate. The thought that people are going into prison and becoming addicts is horrific to the public, but we know that that happens, for the reasons that I have set out. We also know that, as a result, when people exit the prison gate, they are far more at risk of overdose because of the potency and availability of drugs in the outside world.”
“We cannot just solve these problems, even though, as Mark Griffin highlighted, there are technologies that can be put in place. We must recognise that there will be a duality to the approach, which is absolutely key. I was struck by some of the responses about purposeful activity. It is clear that the conditions of imprisonment are what people are attempting to escape from, in the less literal sense. They are trying to absent themselves from the mental drudgery and torture in their daily lives. People— typically, it is young men—who are in prison want to learn skills. Many of them want to learn to be joiners or brickies and think that they might have a better life for themselves and their family outside the prison door. Audrey Nicoll talked about third sector organisations.”
“Pauline McNeill raised a good point when she said that the public struggle to understand how it is possible to have drugs and alcohol at such levels in the prison estate. The report does us a service in beginning to build that public and policy understanding about how to deal with those issues. The prison estate is no panopticon, as theorised by Michel Foucault—the cruel and ingenious cage of an idealised prison that presents and creates docile beings. The prison estate is a world away from that. The policing of the prison estate involves continuous conflict with the people in it who are trying to access substances—it is a constant battle. Elena Whitham made the point very well that any technological approach must sit alongside a relationship-based stewardship of our prison estate.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a former deputy director of the Leverhulme research centre for forensic science at the University of Dundee, which submitted evidence to the inquiry and is represented in the report. I pay tribute to the work of my former colleagues. Since 2019, they have worked with the Scottish Prison Service to help us to understand the nature of the substances that are being consumed in our prison estate and some of the methods of delivery. In working with those members of staff—I certainly do not have the chemical expertise to do the analysis myself—I was always struck by the ingenuity of some of the prison population in getting those materials into the prison estate, and we have heard about that from various members in the debate.”
“Lord Hardie—a former Lord Advocate— trying to get an internet connection feels like one of the most inefficient and ridiculous uses possible of public inquiry time. There should be a standard operating procedure that can be followed so that we can get things moving and so that people can receive the justice that they are hungry for. The committee heard that message loudly and clearly across those nine months. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the cost-effectiveness of Scottish public inquiries, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Substance Misuse in Prisons”
“The issues must be dealt with timeously, including for the victims. Victims die as a result of the actions that we are investigating. Again, I think about issues that pertain to the hospital inquiry, which we have talked about at length in the Parliament, and rightly so, and to the Eljamel inquiry. I will use my remaining few seconds to touch on the speech that the clerks prepared for me. The committee considers it essential for transparency and accountability that the relevant public bodies respond promptly to public inquiries, and there is a question of timeframes in that regard. We also recommended the establishment of a central public inquiries unit. I would like to see, perhaps in correspondence to the committee, a more in-depth response to that recommendation, because there is a glaring inefficiency in the process.”
“When considering those issues, we are displacing resource, time, management and strategy. I am a strong supporter of that inquiry, but we must recognise the trade- offs in that regard. Liz Smith, Rhoda Grant, John Mason and Paul McLennan touched on the frequency with which we hold public inquiries, but there are also the issues of urgency, which Martin Whitfield covered. As he said, there is a demand for remedy before the harm is repeated. I have concerns that we are not seeing that urgency. Covid inquiries provided one of the most striking comparisons. The Covid inquiry in Australia was completed within a matter of months after the end of the pandemic. Here we are, in Scotland, years on, still awaiting the final modules and recommendations, when we know that another pandemic could happen at any time.”
“We have talked about the cash cost to the public purse and taxpayers as a result of an inquiry. However, the impact on the judicial system, which came through loud and clear in our inquiry, is really important and was, frankly, unknown to me prior to our inquiry. It is a really significant issue at a time of particular challenge for our justice system. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs is nodding, because she knows those issues acutely. I am very conscious of the issues pertaining to public service delivery and the amount of pressure that public inquiries put on public services. One of the key considerations relating to the Eljamel inquiry, which I mentioned, is the pressure that it puts on NHS Tayside, which gives care to the people whom I represent.”
“Michelle Thomson touched on issues related to people making declarations, and we would all welcome the Deputy First Minister’s response in that regard. We need a full explanation of why the Government has taken the decision to grant a public inquiry. I echo Michelle Thomson’s comments. I do not think that, in the most recent announcement yesterday, we had the fullest explanation that we could have had. That is critical to the setting of the terms of reference and the remit that flows from the parliamentary process and the Government’s decision, but it also relates to issues of transparency and a declaration of why we might have got to that position in the first place. That is critical. It is also critical that we understand why an inquiry is needed, because they are not cost free.”
“Kate Forbes: One of the recommendations was for a future parliamentary committee to take a particular responsibility for inquiries. Obviously, that would be a decision for the Parliament. What does Michael Marra think about that recommendation for the next parliamentary session? Michael Marra: I think that it is a very strong and important recommendation. It is correct for the Parliament, as one of the core organisations that will have made demands that the Government will have responded to, to have oversight of the process, but that flows from the other recommendations about ensuring better control of time, remit and costs. The Deputy First Minister and I had an exchange on that, and the question of responsibility between the Government and the Parliament is absolutely clear. In the debate, issues of transparency have come to the fore.”
“It is a question that should animate the Government, hence my intervention on the Deputy First Minister in her opening speech, because it is about the performance and culture of the Government and, frankly, trust in our democracy, which is a very profound question at the moment. In relation to the balance of considerations that the Deputy First Minister pointed to in her thoughtful closing speech, the tension between the Government and the Parliament in making the decision on whether to have an inquiry is a core issue. Without an inquiry, people are denied justice and access to information and transparency, and parliamentarians can ask whether the Government is satisfied and can stand in front of the people and make that justification. Frankly, I think that we came to the correct conclusions in that regard.”
“I am pleased to do so. I declare an interest as a witness to the Eljamel public inquiry, in common with my colleague Liz Smith. I pay tribute to the FPA Committee clerks, who are outstanding, and to my colleagues on the committee for all their contributions to the inquiry and the work that we have done over recent years. I pay particular tribute to our convener, who has led the committee in exemplary fashion during my time on the committee. I cannot comment on his behaviour before that. The question of why so many inquiries are taking place was perhaps not covered by our inquiry’s terms of reference, but it became a key consideration in the way in which all members addressed the issue.”
“It would be interesting for the committee to know where the report was considered. Did the Cabinet discuss the strategic impact of public inquiries on public services, and were the recommendations considered in full by the Cabinet? Kate Forbes: Generally, when a committee writes to a cabinet secretary, the cabinet secretary takes responsibility for the response. It will be carefully considered by officials, and we then compile the response. I never think that the initial response is the end of the matter. There is always quite a lot in my response that identifies how we will explore or consider things further. My hope is that we will be able to provide an update on the recommendations that are being taken forward.”
“I had not seen the document since it was sent, nor any of the other examples, nor had I been given advice on the impact on proceedings if information were released. It was essential, in order to protect the integrity of live criminal proceedings, that I took care and was measured in my responses. I undertook to consider the point in more detail and to provide examples, and I did that. It would have been quite wrong for me to answer such a sensitive question on a live case with anything less than the fullest understanding of the consequences of the issue.”
“We now know that the Lord Advocate provided the First Minister with that information in March 2025. So, Lord Advocate, is a new justification being provided today that is different from the one that was provided last week? It certainly seems that, three times last week, that justification was made and Parliament was misled. The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. The Lord Advocate: I have answered that question. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate: I was clear in my answers that there were other examples of information having been provided in similar circumstances but that I could not give details without understanding the impact on proceedings. I had not, in the time available before answering the question, seen the March 2025 document.”
“It is absolutely clear from the information that has been provided by the Lord Advocate that this practice developed under the Scottish National Party Government. The Lockerbie bombing and the Glasgow terror attack are completely different from—and not comparable to—the cases since 2011 that have been presented in her information. There was a clear change of approach and culture at that point. However, as has already been mentioned, three times last week, the Lord Advocate said in very specific terms that she was able to inform the First Minister about the details of the case because, “From the point at which an indictment is served, there is no limitation on its terms being made public.”—[Official Report, 18 February 2026; c 77.] Those are the Lord Advocate’s words.”
“Year after year, the SNP in Edinburgh knifes local government and leaves local councillors to take the flak for the savage cuts that they are forced to mete out on communities. As we speak, councils are meeting to set their budgets for the coming year. Yet again, they are being forced into making eye-watering council tax rises, all because the SNP Government in Edinburgh refuses to give councils their fair share. Many councils now find themselves struggling to deliver even the most basic statutory services.”
“This budget is more of the same financial chaos from the SNP. There were three consecutive years of emergency budgets in this parliamentary session alone, and another emergency budget is now a racing certainty for whoever forms the next Government in May. There was a spending review, but within days of its publication, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government told the Finance and Public Administration Committee that she did not expect it to last. There is no grip on the finances and no grasp of the peril into which the SNP is plunging Scotland. Let us consider local government, which is at the sharp end of the SNP’s cuts. In a move straight out of John Swinney’s playbook of the past two decades, it has been mercilessly hammered yet again by this SNP Government.”
“However, let us be clear that the budget contains none of the transformative change that Scotland needs after two decades of the SNP. It has been obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in the matter that the budget was always going to be agreed to. The SNP’s pretend brinkmanship has been exposed for what it always was, which is the same old SNP spin. Scottish Labour will not stand in the way of police officers, nurses and local services continuing to be funded at the start of the new financial year in just five weeks’ time. However, we know that this budget of half measures will not last the year. Independent experts from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Fraser of Allander Institute have said so. The former said that areas of the budget are “increasingly detached from reality”.”
“Given that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government rightly ended her speech in valedictory terms, it is right that I also compliment her on a quarter century of service to our country and to our city of Dundee. I think that anyone would recognise the considerable personal sacrifices that are involved in the service by a politician of such tenure. She has my sincere best wishes for whatever comes next for her. [Applause.] I anticipate that the clapping will end with the nice stuff. The good parts of this budget show a knackered SNP Government that is desperately trying to fix a few of its own mistakes. In that regard, it is back to form. The Government is trying to turn a corner on itself and the harm that is has wrought on Scotland’s public services and finances.”