Keith Brown
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“On his visit to Coalsnaughton, in my constituency, the First Minister spoke to residents about the anxiety, uncertainty and disruption that are impacting families who have been evacuated following ground movement beneath their homes, yet there is still no resolution in sight.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Jenny Young: Not just now, thank you. That funding did not repair the damage done to Scotland’s colleges done by the 20 per cent cut, and a spending review promising flat cash—which, in reality, is a cut—gives Scotland’s colleges no light at the end of the tunnel.”
“Fergus Ewing argued for years that air passenger duty should be devolved so that it could be passed to this Parliament and the Scottish Government could cut it in order to encourage more people to fly here, but guess what? It has now been devolved—we now have air departure tax—but what is the Scottish Government going to do?”
“I am just trying to work out what the Conservatives’ approach is. In the previous session of Parliament, virtually every single member of a group of nearly 30 members—maybe more than that; it is now reduced—advocated more public expenditure in virtually every area of Government and yet wanted to cut Government income.”
“What we should be doing with our tax powers, instead of constantly increasing the tax burden, is making Scotland competitive and attracting more wealthy people to come here. Whether they are coming on holiday, to invest, to set up businesses or to purchase property, let us encourage them.”
“The Scottish Fiscal Commission talks about the economic growth gap that my colleague Craig Hoy referred to earlier. People talk about the private jet tax as something to celebrate. I was recently told by tourism leaders that the fastest-growing sector in Scottish tourism is what they call the high end of the tourist market.”
The complete record
Every one of 290 lines we hold for Keith Brown, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“The Labour Party’s choice to stay silent and abstain from this historic budget vote speaks volumes, not least in relation to the impact on the fabric of our communities. The other major issue that casts a huge shadow over the budget relates to Ukraine. The budget is perhaps not directly affected, but it has to be formulated against the backdrop of the threat of future major public spending cuts. I speak for myself when I say that there is no option other than that we will have to contemplate a substantial increase in defence expenditure in relation to personnel and equipment. That means rearmament, recruitment and research. We will do that because we want to defend not just Ukraine but Europe.”
“Scottish Autism, an organisation that is anchored in my Clackmannanshire and Dunblane constituency, provides indispensable services across communities, but it is now confronted with an unsustainable financial burden. It has forecast an annual increase in costs of up to £850,000 due to the policy. That £850,000 should be channelled into improving lives and enhancing services in communities; it should not be wasted on mitigating the fall-out from an ill-conceived policy decision. The jeopardy that organisations such as Scottish Autism face underscores a profound policy failure that threatens the very fabric of our community support systems. We cannot and must not allow that to continue.”
“They are not in Scotland—they are in England and Wales. What about Labour? It is the party that started by saying, “There’s no money left,” and, by abstaining on the budget, it is now the party with no conviction left. In the words of the dictionary, it has decided to refrain from performing a public duty. That says it all about the Labour Party—it has absolutely no conviction whatsoever. Since Labour was elected in the UK, it cannot be trusted on finance. It has already changed the fiscal rules, and the headroom that it talked about has already gone. On trust, the SNP Government comes out well ahead. There are two very big issues underlining the budget of which the public will certainly take note. The first relates to the tax on jobs through ENICs. I will give a local example of the detrimental impact of that policy.”
“It built many new primary and secondary schools across Scotland, and it provided the child payment, free tuition fees and free prescriptions. We also abolished the bedroom tax. We used to hear a lot about issues with the bedroom tax from Labour, but we do not hear about them any more, given that the bedroom tax has been left untouched in England. As for the Tories, they brought us the highest tax burden since world war two, with the country more than £2 trillion in debt. It is the party of financial incompetence on a grand scale. The Tories also gutted the armed forces in terms of both personnel and equipment. Sandesh Gulhane said that the SNP spends beyond its means, but his party left us £2 trillion in debt and with the highest tax burden since the second world war. Where are the bankrupt councils in the UK?”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. Today, we have heard what MSPs think of the budget, but, in due course, we will hear what people think of it. It is probably useful to look beyond the details of the budget—which we have heard a great deal about this afternoon—to some of the broader themes. Many people will form a judgment on the budget based on the issue of trust. The SNP has balanced its budget for 17 years. It built the new Queensferry crossing with £400 million less than was budgeted for it. It built the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which previous Administrations had just talked about. It built in the Borders the longest piece of new rail infrastructure in the UK for 100 years.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect; I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Brown. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“I met members of the workforce at Forth Valley College in Falkirk to discuss the challenges that they face, and I assured them of the steps that we have put in place. I will continue to have dialogue with the workforce about the issues.”
“It is vital that the voices of the workforce, many of whom live in my constituency, are listened to closely when options for the site’s future are considered. We cannot simply sit back and watch another economic crisis unfold in central Scotland due to apparent inaction from Westminster, particularly in relation to carbon capture. Can the First Minister say any more about the Scottish Government’s latest engagement, specifically with regard to trade unions? The First Minister: I met workforce representatives last Thursday, and we discussed the current situation in the light of our understanding of the events. We have maintained dialogue throughout the period since Petroineos made the initial announcements.”
“The Tories have been asked a number of times where they would get their tax cuts from. Is it local government? Is it transport? Is it health? They will not say because they cannot say. This is a good budget, and I urge the Parliament to support it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We come to the final speaker in the open debate, after which we will move to closing speeches. I call John Mason—you have up to four minutes, please, Mr Mason. 16:24”
“Keith Brown: Why can the Labour Party not support something that will address the horrendous decision to cut the winter fuel allowance? You would think that it would jump at the opportunity to do that. We have heard a great deal from the Conservatives and the Labour Party. They are very much in favour of reform, even to the extent that they are willing to give their votes away to the Reform party, as we can see. I read today that Anas Sarwar is willing to work with Nigel Farage on a case-by-case basis. That gives the game away as to what kind of Labour Party we currently have in this Parliament. This is a very good budget but, of course, it should be open to influence and amendment if members have any decent ideas and they can say where they would make cuts.”
“They have a duty to participate in this Parliament and make decisions for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Simply opting out because they have difficult choices is not good enough. That is one reason among many why Labour is slipping down the polls in the way that it is. The Tories are now fourth or fifth behind Reform and various others, but Labour is tumbling down the polls. One reason for that is the lack of decision making, the lack of principle and the lack of conviction from the Labour Party here. Why can you not support something that will address the two-child cap? You have said that you are against the cap, so why can you not support something that will— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please speak through the chair.”
“Liz Smith: How does Mr Brown react to the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s comment that we do not have anything like the tax base that we need or, indeed, the amount of revenue coming in to pay for all his projected free services? Keith Brown: The budget will be balanced, as it has been every year. The cabinet secretary will ensure that that happens, and I am content with that. It is also true that the Tories have brought in a debt of £1.7 trillion. That is financial mismanagement. That is nearly 100 per cent of gross domestic product. That is the Tories’ track record of 14 years of failed austerity. The big story is the Labour Party, which will abstain from the vote. One of the dictionary definitions of abstain is to refrain from performing a duty. That is exactly what Labour members are doing.”
“The Tories will vote against the budget and Labour will not support it, but I could not believe it when I heard Pam Gosal accuse the Scottish Government of financial incompetence. The Government of Liz Truss is the very acme of Tory financial incompetence. Let us look in more detail at the Tories’ track record. People in England now pay higher tax than the majority of people in Scotland. The Tories do not like that fact, but it is simply a fact. The majority of people in Scotland pay less tax than people in the rest of the UK. The Tories brought in the highest tax burden since the second world war. Liz Smith: Will the member give way? Keith Brown: If Ms Smith can be brief, I will give way.”
“I very much welcome the proposal to have a cap on bus fares for a trial period. At some point in the future—although I would not propose it for this parliamentary session—we might have to consider a completely free bus service, because of the benefits that that could provide for the environment and for people across the country. The trial is a great initiative to see whether we can start that process. Over and above that, two things should be mentioned. One is the action on the two-child cap—which we have heard little about from Labour or the Tories, but which is so important to many people—and the other is the action on the winter fuel allowance. It seems absolutely astonishing that all the benefits that I have just mentioned will be opposed by the Tory party and not supported by the Labour Party. Let us look at the Tories.”
“A couple of members have mentioned free prescriptions, and we sometimes forget how important they are to people across the country, as are free tuition fees. There are horror stories down south just now because people face tuition fee debts of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Apart from being a disincentive to other people to go on to further and higher education, that is a crippling start to people’s working lives, and we will not have that in Scotland, just as we will not have the bedroom tax once again. We used to hear a great deal about that, but we do not hear so much about it these days. We should also recognise that, in this country, we have a publicly owned train company that is deemed to be the best train operating company in the UK, and it is great to see that continuing under this budget.”
“It is a great relief to see a real uplift for local government services. In relation to health, I note that I currently have cause to interact with the health service a great deal, and my experience is that people are fed up with the work that they are doing being denigrated in this place on a weekly basis. They know that they are better paid and that there is more money coming to the health service. Of course there are challenges, but they provide an excellent service. It is good to see the uplift that is being allocated to health as well. Similarly, it is a tough time for our police force, but, at every level in Scotland, they are paid more than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK, and we should not let the budget pass without saying that we are grateful that that will continue.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I also say well done to the cabinet secretary for the work that she has put in so far—it has not been an easy process—as well as to her civil servants and colleagues in the Scottish Government. I also include within that the Greens and the Lib Dems, who have taken a positive and constructive approach to the very serious business of ensuring that funds are available for public services in Scotland. It is worth mentioning that there are some very good things in this budget bill, the general principles of which we are being asked to support. I am very pleased about the uplift for local government. Whatever our party, we can all acknowledge the fact that it has been a difficult few years for local government because of budget settlements from elsewhere.”
“I hope that the members of other parties who profess to support culture and the arts will support the Scottish Government’s budget, which proposes such a large increase. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We now move to closing speeches. 16:31”
“It went to Hamburg for the world cup a few years ago, and it was piped on at the very first match, even though Scotland was, unfortunately, not represented in that world cup. There is no doubt that we all have cultural assets in our communities, and many people will be very pleased about the proposed increase in the budget that the Government has announced. They will also understand—even if some people in the chamber do not—that the UK Government’s austerity cuts have had a profound impact on funding for culture over many years. Despite that, the Scottish Government has maintained increases in culture budgets, albeit that those increases have, I acknowledge, sometimes been minimal. There is a lot to be very pleased about in the budget, and I hope that the committee will finish its work in scrutinising the Scottish Government’s proposals.”
“As somebody who grew up in Edinburgh and spent 30-odd years here, I would say that I am very much a supporter of all the festivals, but we have to remember that there are other parts of Scotland—and that does not just mean Glasgow; it does not just mean either Glasgow or Edinburgh, or either the Highlands or the Lowlands. My area is Stirling and Clackmannanshire. We have to ensure that we have a cultural presence, too. Mention has not been made of the Macrobert Arts Centre in Stirling, in my constituency. It is an invaluable cultural asset, as is the Smith Art Gallery and Museum, which is in Evelyn Tweed’s constituency. If any members doubt that those are cultural assets, they should think about the oldest football in the world, which was discovered in the area.”
“Let us at least acknowledge the hugely damaging impact of Brexit on the culture sector in Scotland. Politicians who do not acknowledge the effect of 14 years of austerity and Brexit have no credibility when they talk about the culture sector. As a member of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, which has recently reviewed the budget, I can confirm that the committee’s discussions have highlighted the on-going recovery of cultural organisations following the pandemic—although I am not trying to minimise the challenges that they still face.”
“Will Labour, for once, have the gall to propose an amendment to the budget that advocates for more money for culture? I am guessing that it will not, as it has never done that in the years that it has been here. If Labour wants more credibility, it must acknowledge the effect of 14 years of austerity. I also agree on the other effects, such as the pandemic and increased employee costs. All sorts of things have had an impact on the culture sector, as they have on many sectors. Michelle Thomson was right to say that Brexit has had one of the biggest impacts. The committee has heard about the absolute demolition of the careers of many musicians who can no longer tour Europe because of the costs and restrictions involved. Many of them now go under an Irish banner because the Irish are willing to help them to do that.”
“We would never have guessed that from Neil Bibby’s contributions. The other thing that undermines any credibility that Labour would have is the fact that, whenever we see a Labour minister on TV these days, they start the interview by talking about the horrendous record that they have inherited from the Tories. I have a lot of sympathy with that, but they pretend endlessly that it had no effect in Scotland. It obviously undermined all that Labour did in Wales, including all the cuts to local government there, but it had no effect in Scotland—that was entirely down to the SNP. That gives Labour no credibility whatsoever. It is also the case that, when Labour makes all its demands for more money, it refuses to say how much more money it is talking about and where it would come from.”
“Interestingly, I saw a revised version of that play last year at the Royal Lyceum—it was a fantastic production. While we are looking into the past, a couple of points really have to be made. We heard from Neil Bibby, who refused to take my intervention, and others about the idea that it is revisionism on the part of the cabinet secretary to talk about the new funding that has now made been available, and that he was ignoring the past. Well, let us take a wee look at the past. Equity has produced a report that says that, between 2018 and 2023, funding for the arts and culture fell in England by 11 per cent, in Northern Ireland by 16 per cent and in Labour-run Wales by 30 per cent. Funding for culture in Wales, which is run by Labour, fell by 30 per cent, whereas in Scotland it increased.”
“When I was a kid, we used to get the bus there on a Monday morning to go to the swimming pool, which was in the future chamber of the proposed assembly at the time. It is sad to see how that building has not been developed over the years. It is interesting to note that it was reclaimed by the council in Edinburgh for, I think, £1, because, under a pre-emption clause, the council had the right to reclaim it after the war, when it had been taken over by the Government. We also heard Clare Adamson, our committee convener, talk about the 7:84 Theatre Company. As someone who is a bit older than Clare Adamson, I remember the impact that “The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil” had on Scotland, the relevance that it had and the relevance that it still has to Scotland’s situation.”
“First, I think that it is worth saying that there is a degree of consensus on the fact that the Scottish Government has proposed a historic £50 million increase in funding for investment in our cultural landscape. That is a significant step towards the Government’s target of raising funding by £100 million by 2028-29, and it demonstrates the Scottish Government’s commitment to supporting culture during these challenging times. I agree with other speakers—in particular, Maggie Chapman and Evelyn Tweed—on the value of culture for us all. Maggie Chapman talked about how it reminds us of the “shared humanity” of the country in which we live, and that is a very important point. It is also true to say that many references have been made to the past, and the Royal high school has been mentioned a couple of times.”
“First, the welcome uplift in funding for Scotland’s arts and culture budget is a direct result of the new United Kingdom Labour Government’s record funding settlement to the Scottish Government. With £5.2 billion more coming to Scotland over the next two years, the cabinet secretary simply cannot argue that that is a coincidence. Secondly, I do not think that anyone in the culture sector is going to be eternally grateful to the Scottish National Party Government just for keeping a promise to provide restorative funding.”
“Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: Will the member give way? Neil Bibby: I give way to Stephen Kerr. Stephen Kerr: The reality is that that debate is happening now. If self-congratulation were an Olympic sport, Angus Robertson would win the gold at every Olympics. Neil Bibby: I will come on to that. I would certainly not disagree with Mr Kerr about that. Of course we welcome the intention to increase the culture budget for the next financial year, as has been announced in the draft budget: it would be churlish not to. We welcomed the Government’s statement of intent, back in 2023, to increase funding. We demanded that the cabinet secretary set out a timeline for delivery, and I have been holding the Government to account so that it keeps its funding promises ahead of the draft budget. I wish to make two important points.”
“When I sat on the sustainable growth commission a number of years ago, it came through loud and clear from comparable countries that had delivered the biggest change, particularly related to economic prosperity, that they had looked at a period of 25 years. That meant that, irrespective of who was in government, there was a shared perspective on what would lead to the biggest change, and stakeholders could rely on the Government to deliver those changes irrespective of who was in it. Ben Macpherson was absolutely right, and he identified precisely why. We need a framework and clear goals to get behind, and that is what we propose to have.”
“It is a lot easier to do that if we have a framework that everyone can get behind, because the framework identifies where the money should be spent and the most effective policies for delivering it. If there is anything that we need to hear more of in Scotland, it is frank, open debate in civic Scotland—that is, outside Parliament—on the big policy changes that will make the biggest impacts. I am afraid that I do not know how much time I have left. I will calculate it quickly. I had six minutes, so I have 45 seconds left. Ben Macpherson’s point hit the nail on its head. He identified that what leads to long-term change is having a number of shared outcomes that we can all get behind.”
“Pam Gosal set out some objectives that we should be very serious about addressing, and tackling gender inequality and domestic abuse are obvious examples of those. People across the country have lived experience of those things, and there are questions about justice. At the end of the day, irrespective of which shiny framework we have to measure our progress, we have to listen to those whose experience is anything but fair or just. On Alex Rowley’s point, I believe that the biggest societal changes have not come out of tick-box exercises. Transformation has come from a focus on delivering the change that we need in partnership with people and through treating people as equals.”
“The review happened as I went on maternity leave and some of the changes happened when I was out of government, but there is absolutely no doubt that John Swinney’s Government believes in economic growth, and economic growth for a purpose. That prosperity needs to be shared as fairly as possible, which is why I have some sympathy with Daniel Johnson, who set out why economic growth per head of population is a good measure. Michelle Thomson asked a number of questions about the extent to which the national performance framework informs discussions in Cabinet, its actual use, and how we collect data. Those are good questions to start our conversation on what should replace the national performance framework and how we can embed the UN sustainable development goals so that they become a useful tool and a useful aim.”
“We want it to be a framework for all of Scotland, albeit that it may not be instantly recognised across Scotland. We recognise that Government needs to lead on that work, but we are committing this afternoon to properly reviewing the national performance framework for the longer term, for all the reasons that have been set out, and working with Parliament to ensure that we set out some clear goals that we can base Scotland’s progress on. I turn to members’ specific points. On whether the economy should be identified more clearly, I think that it should—it is in my job title that I am cabinet secretary for the economy. Economic growth has been identified as one of the First Minister’s four priorities.”
“There is an opportunity to really listen to those comments, act on the evidence and set things up well for the longer term. My opinion is that the status quo, or business as usual, is now not an option, and I think that that reflects what has been said across the chamber this afternoon. It appears that most people agree that the national performance framework and national outcomes aim to set out the kind of country that we want Scotland to be. That is largely because they are based on the United Nations sustainable development goals. I am unsure as to whether people in Craig Hoy’s local pub would be familiar with the UN sustainable development goals. However, it is about Governments taking those northern lights, as it were, and trying to set a framework around them, which is what we are seeking to do.”
“16:47 Kate Forbes: I will address a number of points that members made in the debate, but I will first repeat some of the points that I made in my opening speech, for fear that they may have got lost in some of the other comments. Over the next year, we propose to start again with the national performance framework—in other words, to look again at every aspect of it in order to develop and implement a stronger and more strategic and impactful framework for Scotland. I appreciate that some people may respond to the word “reform” with impatience. There will be stakeholders and users who were expecting a revised framework to be in place soon after the inquiry, but there are positives and opportunities in our approach, particularly if we take on board all the comments that have been made in the chamber this afternoon.”
“Of the 61 indicators, fewer than half show performance improving, and 11 even show worsening outcomes. Three out of eight indicators are worsening in both the fair work and business and health categories, and four out of nine education indicators have no data available. What this report therefore tells us is that the Government is simply failing either to deliver on its national outcomes or to demonstrate that it is making any serious effort to do so. There are weaknesses here. Is the national performance framework a useful tool? It may be—frankly, the jury is still out on that. However, if we accept that it exists and that it has a purpose, the Government has to do much more to demonstrate that it is trying to meet the very objectives that it has set itself.”
“Where, for example, is the measure of efficient use of public resources in Government? Where is the measure of a target for efficiency savings in Government departments? That is commonplace in the private sector, but we do not see it in the public sector. Am I okay for time, Deputy Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I think that another minute would be in order. Murdo Fraser: That would be fine, thank you. I will try to say what I have to say in another minute. I will touch briefly on the second question, which is that of performance. There are 81 national indicators; however, as Craig Hoy said, only 61 are actually measurable. As of last year, there was no data available for 11 of those, despite their having been agreed as part of the previous review, in 2018. We cannot measure progress if we do not have the data.”
“That is how we help to eradicate poverty and spread wealth through society. It is disappointing that what should be a key objective of a Government—to drive economic growth—is not covered in the national outcomes. In its report, the committee highlights the fact that many consultation submissions raised concern regarding the omission of explicit references to economic growth. The committee also called for an effective implementation plan for the national outcomes. If the NPF is to be more than a box-ticking exercise, we need to see a plan for delivery. Those criticisms are not new, having been raised back in 2022. The Government says that it will provide such a plan, but we still have not seen it. My final point on the first question, about how the framework is drawn up, is about what is not measured.”
“We, in Scotland, can try to measure the performance of the Scottish economy relative to that of the UK as a whole, but there will be areas that require both Governments to work together. There has been some of that—for example, in relation to city deals, levelling up and the green freeports agenda—but perhaps the area requires a bit more work. I return to what I was saying about the economy. Michelle Thomson tried to explain what the term “wellbeing economy” means. With respect to her, I have yet to hear a clear definition. Until we have that understanding, we will never be clear about the purpose of economic growth and how it sits within the national performance framework. I am firmly of the view that economic growth is important and is a good in itself, and that creating wealth is a good in itself.”
“The economy is a very good area to focus on. Perhaps one of the issues over the years has been the eagerness to set targets, outcomes or elements of the national performance framework that the Scottish Government will never have it in its gift to deliver alone but will be a joint effort with others. If there was a mutual understanding of the responsibilities for and inputs to the economy and, between Westminster and Scotland, our targets for the economy, we would be more likely to get a meaningful outcome and the accountability that should go with that. Murdo Fraser: Keith Brown raises an interesting question. The economy is a shared competence between the UK Government and the Scottish Government.”