Bob Doris
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s ambitious targets to reduce child poverty and the progress that has been made. I have heard that there will be a review of those targets, so it would be helpful to know whether the cabinet secretary believes that the targets have driven delivery in tackling child poverty.”
“They have driven focus and delivery, and have been an exceptionally important part of our armoury as we move forward with tackling child poverty in Scotland. We are seeing that difference being made.”
“Many bus users cannot take a single bus service to where they wish to go. Often, bus users will be required to change buses to reach their end destination. At times, four, as opposed to two, tickets will be required, with a change in the city centre or elsewhere to make the return journey that passengers require.”
“A few stops on a First Glasgow bus will cost £2.45, and it is only a few stops; most single journeys are £3.25. I therefore strongly welcome our Scottish Government’s commitment to a £2 cap price for bus fares in Glasgow. That will make a real difference in our city, but it needs to be carefully implemented.”
“After all, public money that is pumped into bus operators must be used for the public good. Indeed, it is anticipated that, in the current financial year, the budget to be invested in bus services is £528 million—I will say that again: £528 million— and £472.8 million for concessionary travel.”
“For balance, bus passengers, including me, do not tend to highlight when our bus services run well—and they do run well at times. There are occasions when buses are on time and the service is efficient and of high quality. We want to encourage more people to use buses, not fewer.”
The complete record
Every one of 432 lines we hold for Bob Doris, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“I am also aware of our Parliament having to remove protections for opt-outs and matters of conscience from those professionals who might otherwise be required to be involved in the delivery of assisted dying. We all know about examples of excellent palliative care practice that can make a real difference for many. We also know that there are gaps and resource issues. Such provision is not consistent. We need a strategic expansion of palliative care services across Scotland, and we must build the budget to deliver that expansion in the next parliamentary session, irrespective of whether the bill is passed. For me, that would ideally happen before we consider assisted dying further. We must also not conflate palliative care budgets with assisted dying budgets. I am not reassured that the bill does that appropriately.”
“There will now be a referral to a palliative care specialist by the registered medical practitioner if they believe that appropriate care is not being offered, but I am concerned about how the practitioner will always be able to have an informed view on that front. Indeed, more generally, we remain unclear about the skill set and training requirements of any practitioner. It is of concern to me that the bill does not prevent any GP from raising assisted dying with a patient. My concern is that a GP raising such a measure would not be a neutral act, even if it was intended—I am sure that it would be—to be so. In some circumstances, it would compromise the doctor-patient relationship.”
“That said, I was concerned by suggestions that coercion would not be a particular issue. I remain concerned about the ability to identify coercion, which can be hidden and tricky to recognise, particularly in relation to coercive and controlling behaviour. I want to put on the record a quote from an article by Dr Anni Donaldson, Dr Mary Neal and Professor David Albert Jones in Scottish Legal News. They said: “Given the scale of abuse, the low rates of disclosure, and the fact that training, however thorough, cannot reliably detect coercion, it is inevitable that coerced deaths will result if the Assisted Dying Bill becomes law.” That is not a reason not to pass the bill, but we should not pretend that it will not happen.”
“I also thank the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care, which I worked with to develop my own amendments, although I should note that the organisation itself takes a neutral position on the bill. There have been some positive amendments— if not enough to make a substantial difference, from my perspective—and they were lodged in sincerity and good faith. There is now a requirement for the registered medical practitioner to set out in detail how they arrived at their decision to approve a request for an assisted death, rather than a simple declaratory statement to attest that the criteria have been met. That will aid transparency about decision making, but it will not improve the decision-making process in itself. There are also now requirements to seek to identify indirect pressures and undue influence.”
“If the bill to legalise assisted dying is not passed today, many people who have led a dignified campaign in support of a change in the law will be deeply disappointed. Likewise, should the legislation become law, many others will feel just as much disappointment and, in particular, many of our disabled constituents will be shaken by that outcome. As all members have done, I have received heartfelt pleas from constituents on both sides of the debate. My approach to the bill has been to seek to amend it as best I can to bring in some safeguards, even though I am not convinced of the level of reassurance that such safeguards will offer. I sincerely thank Liam McArthur for his constructive engagement on amendments at stage 3.”
“Amendment 267 seeks to ensure that any guidance that is produced in connection with the bill, should it become law, will not conflate assisted dying with palliative care. That is an important practical consideration. People who are referred to palliative care need to know that the practice of palliative care does not seek to hasten death and that the focus will be on supporting them to live as well and as comfortably as possible for the full course of their natural life. That is what palliative care seeks to do. Whatever views members of this Parliament hold—there are many nuanced views—we recognise that assisted dying is something very different, and my amendment 267 seeks to recognise that.”
“However, we have heard that clinicians agree that they cannot reliably predict with any substantial degree of accuracy whether someone will die within six months. Given those circumstances, it is reasonable for there to be guidance on how to interpret and apply in practice the eligibility requirement that the terminally ill adult must reasonably be expected to die within six months. The guidance that is provided for in amendment 262 would support a more consistent approach to identifying prognosis and it could be updated regularly to reflect changes and developments in treatments and the science of forecasting. There is evidence of public confusion between assisted dying and some aspects of existing clinical practice in palliative care. I mentioned that yesterday.”
“It does not seek to require a specific process, because it is unclear at this stage which organisations might be involved in delivering assisted dying. Organisations might have their own relevant policies and processes, which might or might not be relevant to my policy intention. The amendment is therefore deliberately not prescriptive. It simply seeks to give the Scottish Government latitude to bring in appropriate processes. On amendment 262, I welcome Liam McArthur’s support for the eligibility requirement that the terminally ill adult must be reasonably expected to die within six months. However imperfect and challenging in practice that would turn out to be, it helps to make the eligibility requirements less open ended and vague.”
“Also, I have no expectation that all forms of indirect pressure can be identified and mitigated. That is one of the issues that I have with the bill, but I am trying to build in safeguards where I can. If we pass assisted dying legislation, we must make every effort to ensure that it contains as robust a system of safeguards as possible, imperfect as that may be. Amendment 54 seeks to do that. Amendment 55 would require the Scottish Government to produce guidance on how concerns about an assisted dying case may be raised and dealt with. It is inevitable that, at some stage, a family member or other person will want to raise a concern about some aspect of the process and practice that is set out in the bill. Currently, however, the bill makes no particular provision for such a scenario. Amendment 55 is deliberately drawn broadly.”
“I tried to address that at stage 2, but I think that requiring practitioners to have regard to that guidance, which could be updated from time to time, is a much more effective way of doing it. When the professional bodies update the guidance, they will look at the act to understand the parameters that they are working within. That is why it is essential that indirect pressure is addressed in the bill, and not just coercion by a person. The Scottish Government states that careful development of guidance would be required to avoid creating expectations that all forms of indirect pressure can be identified or mitigated in a uniform way. However, it is surely the case that all guidance must be carefully developed in all circumstances at all times.”
“Identifying indirect pressure can be complex and nuanced and, beyond that, judgments about whether such pressure is undue add a further level of complexity. Practitioners will want support and guidance on how to make those life-and-death assessments and judgments. Having guidance will also support a greater degree of consistency, while recognising that every individual and every set of circumstances will be different and unique. 11:00 Of course, existing guidance from professional bodies in the UK does not cover assisted dying scenarios but is more general in nature. If the bill becomes law, they are likely to update their guidance, and my amendment 33 would require practitioners to have regard to the guidance from those professional bodies.”
“Much of the debate over the past few days has revolved around the identification and consideration of indirect pressures, which may affect the decision-making ability of a person seeking assistance to end their life. Debate on the skill set that clinicians currently have and the challenges involved in identifying and taking account of such pressures have also been discussed. I thank Parliament for supporting my amendment 27 and consequential amendments 160 and 33, which will bring in the requirement to ask and discuss indirect pressures with the person applying for an assisted death. Amendment 54 would require guidance to be produced on the identification and consideration of indirect pressures, which may affect the decision- making ability of a person seeking assistance to end their own life. That is important.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Ross Greer: I will take Alasdair Allan first and then I will come to Bob Doris. Alasdair Allan: Mr Greer has indicated that he may be about to speak to the question that I was going to raise. Can he clarify the reasoning behind leaving out the word “require” and inserting “request”? In practical terms, what would that mean for someone? Ross Greer: I will skip to that section, because that is obviously what members are most interested in. The reason for changing from “require” to “request” was that concerns were raised with me that the plain and ordinary meaning of “require” would imply that someone else, other than the patient, could make the judgment that the patient does not require advocacy.”
“Given the gravity of the decision, that is not in and of itself sufficient.”
“Doctors must meet patients face to face in person, because they have to be able to look them in the eye and gauge their feelings and emotions. Does Mr Johnson agree? Daniel Johnson: I completely agree. It is important that good understanding is established. That cannot be achieved in a perfunctory way; it must be done in person. We do not want the matter to be decided after very short interactions; they must be quality interactions. I pay tribute to Bob Doris, because he was quite right, and I urge all members to look at schedule 2. In a sense, the form of statements is the device that will evidence the opinion of the co-ordinating medical practitioner. All that is required is the details of the medical practitioner and the individual, a line to specify the condition, a line to be deleted, a signature and a date at the bottom.”
“Amendment 153 would ensure that the medical practitioner makes the assessment in person and that they meet the person on “more than one occasion” before they do so. At stage 2, I lodged a probing amendment that sought to specify how long the doctor had known the patient, because I sought to establish that a good doctor-patient relationship is needed in order to arrive at an opinion. As a bare minimum, two in-person consultations should be needed in order to arrive at that judgment. Brian Whittle: We are in agreement on this issue. As was raised yesterday, the importance of the doctor-patient relationship is unique. My concern is that that relationship is becoming more distant because people do not see the same doctor repeatedly.”
“That might be the right way to proceed, but we need to be clear that the opinion of the co- ordinating medical practitioner and the independent medical practitioner would be the safeguard. Yes, that would be subject to guidance, training and consultation with other professionals, as set out in other amendments, but, ultimately, eligibility would be their decision. We need to think carefully about how the judgment is arrived at and in what context, and we must ensure that it is robust, evidenced and accountable. Most critically, what happens if the doctors’ opinions are that the person is not eligible for assisted dying? Those questions are the subjects of my amendments in the group.”
“Amendment 28 would ensure that a conversation would have to take place. Amendment 32 would ensure that the registered medical practitioner would have to advise the person who was seeking an assisted death to inform their registered medical practitioner that they were seeking an assisted death. They would also be advised to discuss the request with someone close to them. That was quite a lengthy explanation of my three sets of amendments in the group. All that I would add is that I fully support what Brian Whittle said earlier and the amendments in the name of Fulton MacGregor, who we will hear from shortly. Daniel Johnson: So far in stage 3, there has been much discussion about the safeguards that might be provided for in the bill, but in reality that boils down to the judgment of two doctors.”
“Amendments 39 and 40 would ensure that the person’s general practitioner would be provided with the medical practitioner’s report and that it would be added to medical records. Amendment 67 would add the report to the regulation-making provisions in the bill for the Scottish Government. Finally, my last set of amendments in the group aim to add consistency to the discussions that a registered medical practitioner would have with any person seeking an assisted death. Under the bill as it stands, matters of diagnosis, prognosis, available treatments and palliative, hospice and other care options, as well as the nature of the substance that would be provided to a person, would be explained and discussed with them, “in so far as the registered medical practitioner considers appropriate”. In reality, that could mean no conversation at all.”
“The medical practitioner’s report would also provide relevant information in case of complaints. It might actually be a source of protection for practitioners when there is absolutely no wrongdoing. Should the bill be passed, those reports would also be an important source to inform understanding of the operation of the act in any review. It is surely only right that, with something as significant as assisted dying, a report is prepared rather than simply a tick-box proforma. Amendments 38, 39, 40 and 67 are all consequential on amendment 37. Amendment 38 would ensure that, if a request for assisted dying was cancelled, there would be no need to prepare such a report.”
“My second set of amendments in the group would create a requirement for a medical practitioner’s report to be compiled. The report would set out how any assessment has been reached and would document what evidence was gathered and used to inform the decision and judgment, and the reasons why the practitioner reached their judgment. Without that, the bill contains what, in reality, would be tick-box forms for recording the outcomes of an assessment. The information to be contained in the report would not be recorded anywhere else under the current provisions in the bill. My amendment 37 would therefore establish a provision for registered medical practitioner reports to capture such important information. Through that, the evidence and reasoning behind each assisted dying decision would be clear.”
“My amendment 167 would ensure that, if a person chose not to have such a specialist palliative assessment, refusal in itself would not make them ineligible for assisted dying. The person’s autonomy would therefore be respected. Amendment 168 would allow the registered medical practitioner who was carrying out the assisted dying assessment to take into account, if they wished, a refusal to attend a palliative care assessment in their decision making. Together, those amendments aim to ensure that no one pursues an assisted death without having first received appropriate palliative care and, more specifically, that someone does not pursue an assisted death because of agony that could be treated or because of fears that could be allayed.”
“In the experience of specialist palliative care practitioners, people with a life-shortening condition who express a wish to shorten their life because of distressing physical or psychological symptoms, including common fears, often change their minds. They often go on to enjoy valuable time once those symptoms have been explored, understood and addressed through appropriate palliative care. Indeed, such people will often say later that they are glad that they did not end their life. It is not reasonable or safe to assume that someone who made a first declaration to seek assisted dying would already have received appropriate palliative care. In fact, a wish to hasten death might be an indication of a lack of appropriate palliative care.”
“15:45 Amendments 165 and 166 would dictate the circumstances in which the registered medical practitioner must refer to a palliative care specialist. Amendment 165 would require such a referral when the appropriate palliative care had not been offered or provided to the person. Amendment 166 would require such a referral when the person’s reasons for seeking assisted dying were that they had uncontrolled symptoms, or fears of such symptoms, which is a particularly important issue for palliative care specialists. Both of those are clear-cut examples of when the input of a palliative care specialist could make a substantive difference to ensuring that the person seeking assisted dying has all the support required to make an informed decision on assisted dying that is relevant to their circumstances.”
“My amendments in this group are on three main areas: first, on palliative care; secondly, on the requirements that are set out in the medical practitioner’s report; and thirdly, on registered medical practitioners’ discretion. There are five amendments on palliative care: amendments 23 and 165 to 168. I will turn first to amendment 23. The bill contains a requirement on the registered medical practitioner to ascertain whether the appropriate social care has been provided or offered to any person seeking assisted dying. Amendment 23 would require that the same registered medical practitioner also ascertains whether appropriate palliative care has been offered or provided to that person. That offers a consistency of approach, and I urge members to support it.”
“As I said to Michael Marra, legislation on this matter is quite complex, because it falls between reserved and devolved areas. However, we can do some work on it, and I hope that that work will progress in the next parliamentary session. The Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio question time. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business. Skye House”
“I was at the meeting that the minister referred to, when we discussed what more could be done to tackle the issues that Michael Marra raised. Representatives of Police Scotland were also in attendance. Can the minister provide reassurance that there will be a cross-party approach to tackling the issue in the next parliamentary session, regardless of whether the power to achieve a solution sits with the Government in Scotland or the Government at Westminster, and that local MSPs will continue to be able to have constructive dialogue on the matter with the Scottish Government? Siobhian Brown: I cannot speak for the next Scottish Government, but I assure the member that, if the Scottish National Party is back in Government in the next session, we will engage on the issue on a cross-party basis.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the National Theatre of Scotland as it marks its 20th anniversary. (S6O-05611)”
“Amendment 139, in my name, would require that those seeking assisted dying be offered psychological counselling and that they have not been treated for suicidal thoughts or self- harm. Without that, individuals whose autonomy is already compromised by depression, post- traumatic stress disorder or other mental health issues and conditions could be funnelled towards a premature death instead of receiving the support that they truly need. Maggie Chapman: Will the member give way?”
“As the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care notes, the desire to hasten death can often disappear when the right care is available. Moving on, I believe that my amendment 143 strengthens informed decision making by requiring that a first declaration include a written statement from the patient confirming that they understand the nature and scope of palliative care and the pathway that is offered to them. Patients must know all their treatment options if assisted dying is to be offered at all. Without that, the bill risks fundamentally undermining the patient-doctor relationship and the integrity of our national health service. Moreover, mental health support cannot be overlooked.”
“However, by putting it into the bill, we would be providing them with that opportunity. For the one person who did not want it, there could be 99 others who at least should have that information presented and made available to them. We should ensure that, if the bill is passed, it is as robust as possible in relation to people getting the palliative care that they need. I believe that people should not be presented with a choice whereby they are forced to choose between unimaginable suffering and premature death. The Government must ensure that palliative care is fully funded and accessible, so that those who face terminal and debilitating illness can receive expert support, pain management and holistic care.”
“In debating group 7, we will address some similar amendments, in my name, which Ross Greer has referred to. Under the provisions in Douglas Ross’s amendment 138, what would happen if the person was adamant that they did not want to explore further palliative care options? Could they opt out of a further palliative care pathway? Would that then debar them from going forward with assisted dying, or could they still go forward with assisted dying? I have no view either way; I am asking for clarity on the effect of the amendment. Douglas Ross: We simply cannot force someone to do something that they do not want to do. If they choose not to hear, to consider or to accept the points made about palliative care, that is a choice and a decision that they have made.”
“I agree with Kevin Stewart’s comments about the challenges of decarbonising tenement properties in a fair way. In my constituency, many low-income households will struggle to play their part as householders. They will need support and investment, and all levels of government will have to contribute to that.”
“For me, that means partnership working between both Governments to ensure that capital budgets for this place can continue to be used to expand the public network and to help to fund households and communities that, due to their house types, cannot simply have an EV charging point in their driveway. On-street solutions for tenement and other properties will be required. Price capping of commercial EV charging regimes may also need to be considered. It would be unfair if any households, but low-income households in particular, had to pay a premium to charge their vehicles because the fact that they did not have a driveway meant that they had to pay a commercial rate. That would not be acceptable, but that policy intervention will have to take place at a UK level.”
“The Scottish Government has already invested £30 million to support the expansion of public electric vehicle charging networks, which should deliver 24,000 additional charging points by 2030. Thankfully, the up-front costs of new electric cars continue to fall, and I hope that they will reach parity over the next few years. Importantly, the resale market is increasingly strong, and price parity is likely to be approached much sooner than that. Regarding electric vehicles, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee stated that there are still challenges around up-front affordability, the cost of charging and the significant inequalities that exist in that regard. We asked that the final plan set out how the Scottish Government intends to work with the UK Government and relevant stakeholders to overcome those barriers.”
“The draft plan includes phasing out new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030 and ensuring that all road vehicles produce zero emissions by 2040. The success of that approach in Scotland will be dependent on having a stable UK policy landscape, including zero-emission vehicle mandates that dictate the percentage of cars and vans that are zero- emission vehicles between now and 2035. It will also depend on the UK’s vehicle emissions trading scheme for manufacturers being successful. Investment from the Scottish Government, our local authorities, the private sector and households will be required in order to ensure that the charging infrastructure is in place.”
“Without successful delivery of Scotland’s climate change plan, the UK plan has no chance of success. It is fair to say that the cabinet secretary indicated that relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government have improved in recent times, but, in appropriately diplomatic language, she has hinted that there is perhaps still a wee bit of room for improvement—let us just say that there is still work to be done more generally. I apportion no blame in that regard. I say to Stephen Kerr that I will not do so during this debate, at least. However, that partnership has to be as close to rock solid as it ever can be between two Governments from two different parties in two different places. That is vital. The switch to electric vehicles is a good example of why that has to be so.”
“Members might be forgiven for thinking that that ambition was not in evidence this afternoon. This is Scotland’s climate change plan, not the Scottish Government’s. It requires buy-in and strategic partnership at all levels of government as well as from our business community, our private, public and third sectors and our communities right across Scotland. After watching the debate this afternoon, I think that some people have opted out of engaging with the debate. We need people— including me—to opt in and make the lifestyle changes that we all need to see. We will have to bear that in mind when we discuss the issue in the future. If ever there was an issue on which we should see non-tribal work between the Scottish and UK Governments, this is it.”
“It has been quite an afternoon, hasn’t it? Irrespective of people’s views, the draft climate change plan reflects a substantial piece of work by the Scottish Government and its officials, and I thank them for that. I also thank my colleagues, of all parties, on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for their thoughtful scrutiny. I thought that we did that very well. Of course, I also give thanks to all those who supported our work, including clerks, advisers, witnesses and other committees in this place. In our consideration of the plan, we must seek to offer constructive scrutiny and—believe it or not—take a collegiate approach to working together on a strategic document that aims to make long-term progress and secure delivery on the ground.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it and its partner agencies promote and raise awareness of the need for responsible outdoor access and dog walking to reduce any instances of livestock worrying and damage. (S6O-05579)”
“) To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport regarding its plans to deliver a franchising framework assessment to support the potential introduction of local franchising, as required under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. (S6O-05572)”
“Outcome 3 of our “Palliative Care Matters for All” strategy notes that national and local leaders need to have relevant data to inform the planning and delivery of services, so I agree with his points.”
“Given that I chair Scotland’s cross-party group on palliative care, and in the light of our ageing demographic, the level of unmet need in palliative care is not wholly surprising to me. Marie Curie has helped to push forward our debate on resourcing palliative care. We must identify and quantify the gap in provision as part of any strategy to fill that gap, and we need a baseline. Does the minister agree that our long- term strategy to address the palliative needs gap will require a long-term approach to uplifting resource in all aspects of palliative care, as well as encouraging innovation and service reform across all sectors? Jenni Minto: I recognise the work that Mr Doris has done in this area.”
“They are certainly not in this budget. This is yet another disappointing budget, which will undoubtedly lead to yet another emergency budget revision along the lines of the three previous ones in this parliamentary session. That is why Scottish Labour cannot support another budget that simply kicks the can down the road and asks for the SNP to be elected again in May to fix the problems that it has created. 16:47”
“The problems that we have stem, in part at least, from a failure to grow the economy. The deficit could be wiped out overnight if we had a Government that was focused on increasing jobs, wages and opportunities for Scots. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that this year’s performance gap—that is, the price that we pay for slower growth in earnings and employment in Scotland relative to the rest of the UK—is £800 million. Every 0.1 percentage point of additional growth in Scotland relative to the rest of the UK would deliver £25 million to spend on public services here. That would pay for about 750 qualified band 5 nurses, a new community hospital or, if this Government were in charge of roads, about a kilometre on the A9. Where are the measures to improve productivity, grow wages and reduce economic connectivity?”
“Daniel Johnson: Do I have enough time, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You can have the time back for Bob Doris’s intervention, but I cannot give you any more time. Daniel Johnson: That sum of £650 million is quite astonishing. There is a simple question for this budget. As I pointed out to Stuart McMillan, the Government has, over this year and last year, received more than £10 billion in the block grant. The simple question is: where has that money gone? It has certainly not gone into improving public services, because there are hundreds of thousands of Scots on NHS waiting lists. We have a justice system that is well past breaking point, an education system with declining standards and the scandal of more than 10,000 children living in temporary accommodation.”
“We simply do not have the psychiatrists or the clinical psychologists to undertake those assessments, so the Government should not tell me, or everyone else, that that will fix the problem. Miles Briggs is absolutely right. Until the budget deals with the deep structural problems of the health service, not least of which is the underfunding of services in Edinburgh and the Lothians, it is not a budget to take seriously. If it makes members feel better to vote for the budget, they should by all means do so, but they should not pretend that it is a solution, and they should not use a sanctimonious tone towards those who have objections to the budget. The reality is that, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute, there is an underlying deficit of more than £650 million. Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention?”
“It is no wonder that the IFS—as referenced by Michael Marra and Jackie Baillie—has said that, on the health provisions, the budget increasingly looks “detached from reality.” I say gently to members who are holding up their so-called budget wins to look very carefully at them. This time last year, Liberal Democrat members proclaimed that they had found the funding for the Edinburgh eye pavilion. We still do not know where that funding is—indeed, we have only heard in recent weeks that that money is not confirmed. The Government holds up the provision of £7 million to deal with the delays in autism assessments, but £7 million will barely touch those delays. It is a one-off payment for something that affects tens of thousands of people.”
“I, too, commend the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Does Daniel Johnson believe that we should listen to it carefully on Scotland’s fiscal framework in the years ahead? Doing so would give us far greater results and flexibility when negotiating and agreeing budgets in the Parliament. The Fiscal Commission’s advice could be a very important part of that process. Daniel Johnson: That is all very well, but the Government negotiated the fiscal framework and then re-signed up to it. Indeed, when it was first agreed, John Swinney held it up and claimed it as a victory for Scotland, so any retrospective revisionism simply does not add up. This budget is symptomatic of this Government. It follows 18 similar budgets in which difficult decisions have been deferred and exceptional revenues have been plundered.”
“The fact that a Labour Government refuses to take action that could free 75,000 children from the pain of poverty tells us everything that we need to know about UK Labour. Homeless Households (Permanent Accommodation) 7.”