Martin Whitfield
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on its energy policy and strategy, and in light of reports that Torness nuclear power station is due to close by 2030, what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s new fusion strategy, which aims to deliver thousands of jobs and long-term energy security. (S6O-05690)”
“I ask members to note my entry in the members’ register of interests. As we come to the conclusion of today’s debate, I rise to offer the full support of Scottish Labour for the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.”
“The last few motions before us today are the final motions from the committee designed to put the standing orders book in its best possible state for the next session. The first motion, regarding the sixth report, relates to cross-party groups. We have had some challenges this session with the compliance of cross-party groups.”
“Last year’s fostering and adoption statistics show that children who are going through the adoption system face significant delays, with some waiting for six months or longer.”
“I will dwell on the comments he made as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, because it is a tribute to him that he saw, in that committee, the ability to fulfil a role that is crucial for committees in a unicameral Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21167, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a motion on legislative consent for the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK legislation, be agreed to.”
The complete record
Every one of 844 lines we hold for Martin Whitfield, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 17.
“They now have a position of neutrality, which reflects a shift in the position. Medical professionals, who, more and more, want to see a change in the law are, at the very least, wanting constructive and meaningful engagement on the issue. The Church of Scotland’s report, which was published earlier this month, points to a similar shift in some of our churches and in the faith community. Those voices, along with the voices of the disability community and others, must be heard in the debate. However, as I said in opening the proceedings many hours ago, it is the voices of the terminally ill Scots and their families who are being failed by the current ban on assisted dying that must be at the centre of the debate, the heart of our deliberations and the forefront of our minds as we prepare to vote shortly.”
“Back then, California was embarking on passing the law that is now in place, which was confirmed again in 2021. At that time, such a law was but a glint in the eye of legislators in Victoria, who then broke new ground in Australia and were subsequently followed by the other states in that country. International evidence of how terminal illness mental capacity models work in practice is now there for all of us to see. They work as intended. The eligibility criteria do not change. Daniel Johnson was right—society’s attitudes have changed closer to home as well. For example, there has been a remarkable shift in the medical profession. I recall that, back in 2010 and even in 2015, the royal colleges of GPs, physicians and surgeons and the British Medical Association were all fundamentally opposed to a change in the law.”
“Jackson Carlaw, in what I thought was a wonderful tour de force, talked about the changed backdrop for this debate compared with the previous ones on the subject. I recall the first time that I was involved in such a debate and was asked to cast a vote. I was very clear about what I believed, what I felt the Parliament needed to do and how I was going to vote, but I vividly recall feeling slightly terrified about going into the chamber and casting my vote. However, the backdrop has changed pretty fundamentally since 2010 and even since 2015. The political mood in Parliament has changed dramatically. Colleagues bring with them their own experience—we have heard some of that this afternoon—and the experience of constituents who have been in touch over recent weeks and months.”
“However, I ask members please not to succumb to the arguments that putting such laws in place is impossible, that the laws that are passed by Parliaments do not go on to work in practice as planned, or that this Parliament is somehow uniquely incapable of undertaking or unfit to undertake the work that so many other legislators and legislatures have succeeded in carrying out. I urge the Parliament to reflect on the fact that, at present, there are often no safeguards for many people who feel a burden, are subject to coercion or abuse, or feel unsupported. I argue that my bill will help to begin to put in place guardrails that are demonstrably absent at the moment, which leaves many vulnerable Scots in a more precarious position.”
“I ask colleagues to look at the international evidence where similar laws are in place. In the case of Oregon, they have continued for the past 30 years to enjoy overwhelming public support and the confidence of medics and others who are involved in the process. In each instance, robust data gathering, reporting and oversight take place, all of which helps to ensure that the laws work in practice as intended. Yes, we need to have the debate. Yes, we need to be alive to potential risks. Yes, we need to make sure that any law that is introduced in this country will meet our needs and circumstances.”
“To them and others who insist that they are at least open or sympathetic to the principle underlying the bill, I say this: if you accept that the ban on assisted dying is leading to too many dying Scots facing a series of horrible decisions at the end of life; if you recognise that many are taking matters into their own hands, often alone and unsupported, adding to the trauma for them and those who they leave behind; if you recognise that we are already effectively outsourcing assisted dying by accepting that those who can afford and have the physical capacity to go to Switzerland are free to do so; and if you recognise that processes such as the double effect of pain management, palliative sedation and even withdrawal of treatment or refusal of food and liquids all currently exist and assist terminally ill patients to die, albeit in many instances without patients being involved in the decision, which was a point that Michelle Thomson made very powerfully—if you find ourselves accepting any or all of those points, I say that we can and must do better.”
“That report also confirmed that there was no evidence of a detrimental impact on palliative or hospice care; indeed, in many instances, additional funding and or improved engagement with such care was evidenced, which was a point that, I think, Rona Mackay and Patrick Harvie made. That is not to say that we should not have to go through the same debate, the same soul- searching and the same consideration of all the aspects of assisted dying and end-of-life choices more generally. That is important for the public, for stakeholders and for us as legislators—again, that was a point made by Jackson Carlaw. However, I hope that that point will offer a degree of reassurance and a degree of confidence to colleagues who might remain uncertain, tentative or even perhaps slightly afraid of making a decision on such a sensitive matter.”
“None of the arguments that we have heard today—over definitions, disability, coercion, palliative care and so-called slippery slopes—is any different from the concerns that were raised in the debates that preceded a change in the law in jurisdictions where a terminal illness mental capacity assisted dying model now operates safely and successfully, and has been doing so for years. We know who accesses the choice of assisted dying. We know what conditions they have. We know at what point in their diagnosis they access it and why. As the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee concluded last year after an 18- month inquiry into end-of-life choices, there are no examples of a terminal illness mental capacity model of assisted dying expanding its eligibility criteria over time.”
“It is right and proper that they are aired in the debate and, if we can make progress by seeking assurances from ministers or whoever that they will address those issues, I will be full square behind that, as I am in relation to Miles Briggs’s attempts to bring forward a right to palliative care bill, as I mentioned earlier. However, there is a limit to what the bill that we are discussing today will be able to do. As historic as this evening’s vote undoubtedly is, the fact remains, as Alex Cole-Hamilton reminded us, that Scotland is not breaking new ground or venturing where others have not already trod.”
“Any legislation that is passed by the Parliament is open to challenge, and I suspect that this legislation might be challenged by those who do not want to see it passed at all. However, I offer that reassurance to Mr Balfour. Daniel Johnson: Will the member give way? Liam McArthur: I want to make a bit more progress. On the points that Pam Duncan-Glancy made about discrimination, societal issues and palliative care, the debate on the bill has enabled those issues to be raised, but I do not believe that the bill can address them.”
“What guarantees can the member give that, over time, the courts will not expand the definition of terminal illness to go beyond what he intends today? Liam McArthur: I thank Jeremy Balfour for that intervention and for his powerful contribution. The courts here and in other parts of the United Kingdom have made it absolutely clear that this is a matter for Parliament. The conflation with the situation in Canada is not helpful, in that the constitutional arrangements there are very different. I also point him in the direction of the evidence that was given by Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge, to the Westminster committee, in which he made it fairly clear that his expectation was that changes through the courts were unlikely. That is not to say that there will not be court challenges.”
“To Pam Duncan-Glancy, who made the most powerful speech in a strong field—it was characteristically impassioned and personal—I say that the bill is not about intolerable suffering. That is not part of the criteria, even though suffering is undoubtedly involved. All that I can do is again point, as Kenneth Gibson and others did, to the research carried out by Professor Colburn, which shows that there is no evidence in other jurisdictions of the access to healthcare and the rights of disabled people being adversely affected by a change in the law of this type. Jeremy Balfour: We have heard several contributions on what will happen with regard to court interventions and interpretation of the bill, which we cannot control once the bill leaves this place.”
“We have heard two powerful speeches from colleagues who believe that we should not change the law, who have fundamental issues with the principle of assisted dying and for whom no bill of this nature will ever be acceptable, no amendments sufficient and no safeguards adequate. Their arguments were no less powerful for all that. Edward Mountain talked about our relationship with death, which is one that we do not talk about nearly enough. That has been a bit of a taboo. On the issue of palliative care, I point out that 80 to 90 per cent of those who access assisted dying in other jurisdictions are in, or have been in, palliative care. I think that Rona Mackay made that point by way of intervention.”
“Elena Whitham talked about her mother, Irene McLeod, being “all sorts of awesome”, in a speech that I thought was all sorts of awesome and that left us pretty close to being snottery wrecks, one and all. Colin Smyth pointed to the case of Brittany Maynard in California. Many people will not be familiar with her case, but it has done much to make the argument behind the changes in the law that have been made in a number of states in the US. He also rightly pointed out the difference that we are talking about with terminally ill patients. They are not suicidal. They are desperate to live and to eke out as much of their life as possible. Conflating those two things does a disservice to those people who need support from our efforts to reduce rates of suicide and those who are desperate for more choice at the end of life.”
“I would probably have a concern about institutional conscientious objection, but that could be explored further at stages 2 and 3. I look forward to doing that. The debate has been characterised by personal stories, which were wholly to be expected, having been reflected in the responses to the proposals that I put out to consultation way back in 2021. I will draw on some of those. Monica Lennon gave voice to Joanne Easton’s powerful testimony. I have shared a platform with Joanne and have rarely come away from that unmoved. Her testimony is evidence of what the current situation all too often leads to. Stacey Adam will be rightly proud of her snottery wreck of a husband this evening.”
“Clare Haughey: One point that we have not really touched on this afternoon is conscientious objection for healthcare professionals. How far would Mr McArthur be willing to push that? My understanding is that the conscientious objection in relation to abortion law covers only directly involved clinicians and not admin staff or support staff. How far would Mr McArthur be keen to go with his bill on assisted dying? Liam McArthur: That is a crucially important point. Fundamentally, the bill is about choice, and choice works both ways. I am open to discussions about how far that could be extended, assuming that a system could be put in place that would not impede the access of those who met the eligibility criteria.”
“I will not be able to do justice to all the speeches in the time that I have available, so let me pick a few issues and contributions. I again thank the committee—in particular, the convener—for setting out very well the findings of the committee report. The convener set out the constructive approach that the committee has taken and the areas that, if the Parliament decides to back the general principles, the committee will wish to pursue with me and others. Whether the issues are around no detriment or capacity, I am very happy to engage with the committee on them. On the issue of a sunset clause, I have my reservations about how that might impact the ability to introduce the system at all. However, I very much welcome the approach that the committee has taken.”
“As well as complimenting Liam McArthur, I compliment members on the quality of the debate that we have had. Liam McArthur will be aware that MSPs have received an incredibly large amount of correspondence from constituents. Members’ decisions on how they vote tonight will be arrived at by considering that and all the other evidence. Would the member agree that absolutely no disrespect is intended to anyone whose position will not be reflected by their members’ votes tonight? Liam McArthur: I whole-heartedly agree with that. That was a central tenet of the speech that Jackson Carlaw just made. As Liz Smith rightly said, this is the Scottish Parliament at its best. She said that in a speech, if I may say, that was further evidence of what this Parliament will miss when she steps down next year.”
“In the honour roll of those who did not serve at the front but ensured that the front could serve, mention should be made of our mining communities, particularly here in Scotland. Graeme Dey: Hear, hear. My apologies. In listing some, we run the risk of leaving others out, but it is absolutely correct for Martin Whitfield to remind us of that. Eighty years on from the original VE day, we continue to hold an honoured place in our hearts for those who laid down their lives in protection of the ideals and values that we rightfully cherish. All of us owe them a great debt. They will never be forgotten. As Anas Sarwar said, we must carry forward their values. Motion without Notice 16:58”
“I hear that in evidence from the third sector as well as from our teaching trade unions. I have been making a point at our headteacher regional events about the way in which the delivery of education has changed in recent years—something that the member, as a former teacher, will know. For example, we now have food banks and clothing banks in our schools. The relationship of that support and our schools has changed. I am mindful of that challenge, and I am thinking about the support that we give our schools and how it might have to be adapted in the future. More broadly, of course it is an ambition that our schools are safe and consistent learning environments. I am not sure that I would accept that they have changed in that regard in the past 18 years.”
“Does the cabinet secretary share my disappointment that, after 18 years, we can still only talk about the ambition for our schools to be safe and consistent, rather than having safe and consistent schools? Jenny Gilruth: Although the member is perhaps a bit older than I am, I am sure that, when he was at school some time in the past, there were incidents at schools—there certainly were when I was at school. I am not sure that we are necessarily living in a different age 18 years after my party came to power, although I accept that that is the member’s point. There are challenges in our classrooms, some of which predate Covid, but some of which have undoubtedly been compounded by Covid. We have also seen the onset of austerity in our classrooms, and that is harming behaviour.”
“I welcome the debate. Following Maggie Chapman’s contribution about the human rights element of the debate, it is interesting to note that one of the challenges for the Government with recent legislation, including the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Education (Scotland) Bill, is about why the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is not being adopted in all those areas, as that assurance was made. However, that is perhaps a discussion to be had with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice on another occasion. I welcome the fact that there has been strong agreement across the chamber about the importance of economic growth if we are going to see any changes in future.”
“Indeed, in March, NHS Tayside calculated that it would take a decade before those being added to the CAMHS waiting list today could be seen. We are talking about young people and children, who currently face a waiting time of six years. In 2018, the SNP’s then First Minister met Jamie Oliver and said that the childhood obesity rate would be halved by 2030, reducing it to 7 per cent, but it now stands at 17 per cent. I could talk about four more pages of broken promises relating to our young people, but I will leave it there. 16:30”
“The young persons guarantee in that manifesto promised to “Fund the ... university, college, apprenticeship”— the skills needs that we have heard so much about this afternoon— “training place or job for every young person”, yet we have 84,000 young people not in education, employment or training. A number of members have mentioned CAMHS. I welcome the Government’s constant heralding of the fact that it now hits its CAMHS targets, but is that not at the price of entirely removing a significantly large number of children from those waiting lists and sending them to other pathways that do not yet exist? There has been a failure to invest the 10 per cent that has been promised for mental health, with only 8 per cent invested so far.”
“There are only six bills as we go into the final year of the parliamentary session, plus two bills from year 4 of the session that will be brought forward. One of those bills, which has already been mentioned in the debate, is on non-surgical cosmetic procedures. I very much welcome that. I strongly suggest that the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill comes back to the Parliament for stage 3 consideration before summer recess to make space for the cosmetic procedures bill, so that it is not lost as we move to the tail end of this parliamentary session. In the short time that I have, I will go back over some of the Government’s previous promises, assurances and solutions. Scrapping the council tax for under-22s—we have to go back to the SNP’s 2021 manifesto for that—does not seem to have been delivered.”
“The challenge for the Government is that the solutions that it has previously promised have virtually all failed to be delivered. However, as other members have done, I welcome the ending of the 8 am lottery and the abolition of peak rail fares. It is important that we start to see an improvement in our NHS rather than an on-going decline, and it is important, with regard to the abolition of peak rail fares, which has been welcomed by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, that we get people back on to the trains. However, if we look at some of the Government’s previous promises, we see that there are challenges that it has to face. Avoiding facing up to those would mean that the promises that have been made in this programme for government will fall again and fail.”
“It is a privilege to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour on the programme for government and to follow Douglas Lumsden, who I note, with the greatest kindness to him, is never knowingly undermetaphored. Douglas Lumsden talked about the importance of nuclear power, which allows me to make mention of it. We have already talked about Grangemouth and the decisions that, if taken five years ago, might have made the situation today very different. Torness in East Lothian has but five years on its current licence to produce energy, so it will be interesting to see the intervention from the current SNP Government with the warning of five years to go. I welcome the First Minister’s focus in the statement that was the precursor to this debate on seeking solutions rather than disagreements.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure greater access to affordable early years provision, in light of reports of the rising cost of childcare for families with children under the age of three. (S6T-02486)”
“I am conscious that I am well over my time, for which I apologise. I will draw my comments to a close for the moment, but, in my summing-up speech, I will perhaps invite the minister, without notice, to come in on one or two of the matters that I have mentioned. I apologise to the minister for that.”
“It pointed out that those things are acceptable, but it then drew attention to the fact that they should be used by committees only in a very limited way. I think that the Government said that because of the bureaucratic problem of monitoring things going forward. However, one of the great powers that Parliaments around the world are developing relates to the use of post-legislative scrutiny—not necessarily even by the Parliaments themselves— in order to continue to hold to account those for decisions that were made. When errors or omissions in legislation—or, indeed, its brilliance— should be highlighted, that can be done through post-legislative scrutiny. I wonder whether the minister could articulate whether there are concerns about post-legislative and pre-legislative scrutiny.”
“First, when the committee invited the Government to talk about the limited circumstances in which framework bills should be used, it specifically used the words “very limited”— language that the Government had accepted in a previous recommendation. However, interestingly, in the Government’s response, it talked about a “flexible approach”. I wonder whether the Government could tie itself down further by agreeing that such bills should be used in incredibly limited circumstances. I am conscious of the time, but I will talk for a minute or two longer to facilitate a changeover of those in the Presiding Officer’s chair. I will briefly mention two other things. The Government seems to be resistant to post- legislative scrutiny and the concepts of sunset clauses and reporting clauses.”
“I compliment the convener, the committee members and the clerks for the language that they have used about when and why such powers would be needed. There is clear sensitivity to the fact that there are circumstances in which actions have to be taken. However, we have to exercise care that those powers do not remain with the Government. The committee— rightly, I think—chose not to go there, but the questions that the committee raised and considered are very important for the rest of this parliamentary session. I am now desperately conscious of the time, but I invite the minister to expand on a few interesting responses that the Scottish Government made to the report. I will use the numbering of the recommendations that the Government used in its response.”
“Martin Whitfield: I will use another convener’s approach to a very similar invitation and say, “Not with my convener’s hat on, I won’t”. I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer. There are a number of other things that I want to highlight— Stuart McMillan: Will the member take another intervention? Martin Whitfield: Okay. Stuart McMillan: Before the interventions, Martin Whitfield spoke about Covid. It is fair to say that we, as a committee, recognised that Covid was a unique situation, so our report did not focus on that period. We spoke about it, and it came up in evidence, but we were very conscious that that was a very different time compared with normal parliamentary time. Martin Whitfield: I whole-heartedly agree with the convener on that.”
“As the Government freely admits, it might well be that the Parliament should, on occasion, say no to the Scottish Government receiving delegated powers because of—insert good reason here. Stephen Kerr: There was a discussion earlier about the appropriateness of using the term “Henry VIII”, who was, of course, an English king—we should make that point very clear. I think that that language is appropriate, because should this Parliament not be very jealous of the delegated powers that it gives to ministers? Should it not demand a clear line of sight of accounting? Does Mr Whitfield, as the convener of his committee, agree that the structures and processes of our Parliament might not be sufficient to manage that delegation appropriately?”
“Jamie Hepburn: Mr Whitfield quotes the age- old maxim that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the fact of the matter is that we, as a Government, do not have absolute power. We are responsive and responsible to this legislature. In relation to the subject matter that we are debating, whether we accept the notion, idea or concept of a framework bill, the Parliament has to agree to Government proposals to have powers through secondary legislation and delegated powers. It is for the Parliament to delegate powers to the Government, and it is in the Parliament’s hands whether to agree to such a proposition. Martin Whitfield: That intervention speaks to the intervention that I made on Roz McCall and to another point that was raised previously: at the end of the day, the Parliament’s structures and procedures must support scrutiny.”
“It is interesting to pick up on something that Roz McCall said in her speech and that the convener mentioned—the use of language such as “skeleton”, “headline” and “enabling”. A lot of the language that is used to describe something is chosen according to where one sits on the argument. That brings me to an important point. Putting aside party politics, there is a great danger that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not in any way level that accusation against the current Scottish Government—yet—but the acquisition of power can become very comfortable and very easy. When we are able to read the Covid inquiry reports, we might well see indications of that having happened. One of the Parliament’s duties is always to hold against the growth of power of the executive.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I made that point at the evidence session with the committee. I wonder whether Mr Whitfield would agree with me and with Andrew Tickell, one of the other witnesses who appeared before the committee, who talked about the pejorative language that is sometimes used. Does Mr Whitfield agree that the term “Henry VIII power” is not entirely helpful, because it leads to odd conclusions about what a Government might do with such a power? Martin Whitfield: That is an interesting question, given the round-table meeting that the First Minister held yesterday and the long discussions that we have had, when considering electoral law and other topics, about our approach to the use of language.”
“They know when the definition has been crafted to avoid including something and, more important, they know when it has been crafted to allow what is being proposed to be approached in a different way. On Henry VIII powers, we must remember that, although secondary legislation can relate to matters such as increasing the fees or the licence costs of something, as the minister suggested, it can also empower ministers to change primary legislation. Giving such a range of powers to a Government must be done carefully. There has been a discussion about whether the use of such secondary legislation has or has not increased. Interestingly, the name “Henry VIII” is attached to those powers in reference to a king who would rather pass legislation by declaration than by agreement.”
“It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, although I feel that, sadly, few are probably watching it. However, the issue goes to the heart of one of the challenges of this parliamentary session. As others have done, I genuinely thank the committee, the clerks and all the witnesses who gave evidence so that the report could be drafted. I find the report to be very interesting and important. I think that the convener does his committee no justice by suggesting that it will not be read in 93 years’ time if the matter is looked at again. I deeply hope that it will be. We have already had quite a lengthy interaction on the need for a definition of framework legislation. With the greatest respect, I disagree with the minister—I think that a definition will be of assistance. If there is a definition, people know what they are looking for.”
“That said, the committee recognised the need, in some cases, for primary legislation to provide flexibility by allowing for laws to be updated without requiring further bills.”
“Speaking of the Donoughmore committee, which was established in 1929 and reported in 1932, it was reassuring to learn that members of the DPLR Committee are not the first parliamentarians to concern ourselves with the issue of ministers’ powers. We do not know whether our report will be considered in 93 years’ time, but the age of the Donoughmore committee’s report on what is substantially the same subject speaks to the fact that this is not a new issue or one that is peculiar to Scotland. In relation to the scrutiny of bills, the committee agreed that its preference, wherever possible, is for the detail of legislation to be spelled out in the body of the bill, to allow for transparency and proper democratic engagement, and to ensure that stakeholders and parliamentarians can engage with and scrutinise solid proposals.”
“It is worth acknowledging that the Scottish Government noted in its response to our report that the committee’s definition “reflects a broad consensus of views amongst academics and practitioners.” On the issue of the frequency with which framework legislation is used, the committee heard a variety of views. There is a general acceptance that the occurrence of framework legislation is not diminishing, but in the absence of a universally agreed definition of framework legislation or a single way of counting it over time, it is not possible to give a definitive answer. On balance, the committee considers that, across jurisdictions, it is likely that the occurrence of framework legislation has increased. If we take the 1932 report of the Donoughmore Committee on Ministers’ Powers as our starting point, the trend seems to be increasing.”
“I compliment the committee on its report. Does Stuart McMillan agree that having a definition of framework legislation, however flawed it might be, is very valuable in enabling us to consider the different steps that might need to be taken with regard to the scrutiny of framework bills as opposed to other bills? Stuart McMillan: Yes, I do. The fact that we managed to arrive at some kind of definition is an indication of that. We recognised how challenging it is to arrive at a definition. That is understandable, given that some of the evidence that we heard in that regard was conflicting. As parliamentarians, we think that most of our colleagues will know a piece of framework legislation when they see one, but we hope that, by setting out our understanding of what constitutes framework legislation, we can help to inform debate.”
“The guidance for 2023-24 requires local authorities to be accountable for the funding as set out in their grant letter. That is to be assessed using the education outcomes for Scotland’s looked-after children, the national improvement framework and the framework for recovery and accelerating progress. The commitment to children in care is that every child who is in care will have access to intensive support that ensures that their education and health needs are fully met. Will the minister confirm how many children in care had those needs met fully in 2023-24? Natalie Don-Innes: As Martin Whitfield would expect, I will have to get back to him with the specific details of that, which I am more than happy to do. Teachers (Temporary Contracts) 8.”
“Let us choose to fight for dignity for everyone. 16:33”
“Let us talk about debt relief for those with council tax arrears. Let us genuinely talk about the prevention of poverty. Let us also talk about the economic transformation that we need to support that— definitely and defiantly around taxation. It cannot be justifiable that, during the Covid pandemic, billionaires saw their wealth grow by 27 per cent, when so many disabled people and others were left destitute. This is the green paper that I wish we had to discuss: one that proposes genuine wealth redistribution to improve the lives of the majority, rather than one that targets those who can least afford to deal with the consequences. As we know, politics is about choices. Let us choose justice for disabled people, for their carers, for those with mental ill health and for those who are unable to participate in the current economic system.”
“Caring is work. Unpaid carers provide a vital service to our society; they save our public and third sector organisations billions of pounds per year. Caring is perhaps one of the most important jobs that we as human beings can have, unpaid or paid. We should not be going after the pretty poor allowance that unpaid carers get at the moment. Paul O’Kane said that scrapping the whole of the green paper is not a sensible option, and that we need a proper conversation about social security reform. I do not disagree with that second statement. Let us talk about a minimum income guarantee as a step towards a universal basic income that values everyone for just being human rather than for the economic contribution that they can make. Let us talk about increasing the Scottish child payment and providing universal free school meals.”
“Why is there not a green paper on taxation reform from the UK Government, rather than this attack on social security? Depriving people of benefits—despite what so many people say, and what Labour says over and over again—will not improve people’s lives. People cannot just “go and get a job”. That is the mentality of the workhouse. As we have heard this afternoon, attacking carers is counterproductive from every perspective—moral, practical and financial. Who will pick up the pieces? Who will bear the costs? It will be the NHS. It will be our already broken homelessness support system. It will be food banks that already cannot feed all those who have come to rely on them. It will feed the care crisis that we already have. Proposing cuts to carers allowance also betrays what the UK Government really thinks about the value of caring.”
“Indeed, Labour campaigned against continuing austerity. It said: “There will be no austerity under Labour.” We remember those words well. At the same time, Labour also pledged not to increase taxes, and it was obvious to many that it would have to break one of those pledges. I find it staggering that, in the face of the resources that are needed to support people, Labour has chosen to keep the promise that most benefits those who already have more than enough to live on. To see Anas Sarwar say this week that wealth taxes are “the wrong solution” was gobsmacking. How is it that the Labour Party would rather punish disabled people and carers—the people who have already borne the brunt of the financial crisis, 15 years of austerity and the pandemic— than back redistributive taxation?”
“We have had briefings, research summaries and the modelling of different outcomes, and we have heard the personal stories and real-life experiences of people who are scared of the consequences of the proposed cuts. From the Poverty Alliance and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to Glasgow Disability Alliance, Carers Scotland, trade unions and community groups, I thank them all. I especially want to thank the local activists in Aberdeen, Dundee and elsewhere in the north- east who are working hard to pull together to provide mutual aid and support for those who are already struggling. Those networks of mutual aid will be much more vital if the reforms are implemented. As Clare Adamson stated quite clearly, the reforms are not what Labour promised when it was campaigning for power last year.”