Liz Smith
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“For many years, I have come to this debate conflicted, well understanding several of the key points raised by those who support assisted dying, partly based on my own family experience, but also understanding the key points in the case against.”
“As a result, I worry about the implications in relation to coercive situations within families, who may put pressure on vulnerable relatives to end their lives, perhaps for financial reasons in increasingly difficult fiscal situations or for reasons that suit their circumstances rather than those of the patient.”
“I wish to say what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech: “Nobody could possibly doubt the far-reaching implications of the most appalling human tragedy at Grenfell tower in 2017, nor the importance of ensuring that nothing like that can ever happen again.” It is absolutely right that measures are put in place to improve building stand…”
“As the minister knows from stage 2, I have concerns about whether people involved in the conversion of historic buildings will face specific unintended consequences as a result of the imposition of the building safety levy, mainly because projects of that nature are not usually speculative and they tend to be a more expensive way of produ…”
“That must include the medical profession’s commitment to saving lives. I continue to worry about a situation whereby we hand ultimate power to doctors, with the possibility that voluntary action could lead to involuntary action.”
“It is on occasions such as these, when the matter that is under consideration is so challenged by complex ethical, moral, legal and practical questions, that I have come to know the Scottish Parliament at its best. We saw that last week and I believe that we are seeing it again this evening.”
The complete record
Every one of 413 lines we hold for Liz Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 9.
“We know only too well that there is an increasing number of pupils for whom being in a mainstream classroom is not in their best educational interests. Parents, teachers and union representatives tell us that. I worry greatly that some children end up being placed in mainstream classes by local authorities for financial, rather than educational, reasons. There is an important debate to be had about what we can and cannot achieve through mainstreaming. Added to that is the question whether specialist care can always be provided in every local authority—or without the help of the independent sector, where many schools have a long tradition of providing additional support for learning.”
“Equity is about fairness and justice, but it also involves recognising that we do not all start from the same place. The principle of equity is so important when it comes to education, and it articulates perfectly the principle of GIRFEC. GIRFEC is about ensuring that all pupils have the opportunity to fulfil their full potential. It should underpin all debates about ASN provision. It is also the principle that underpins my member’s bill on residential outdoor education. From the principle of equity, we can examine the principle of mainstreaming. We can all agree that, in theory, mainstreaming is in line with several of the great traditions of Scottish education. However, in practice, especially now, it is much harder to justify saying that it is in line with GIRFEC.”
“As others have said, the recent evidence about the extent of the increase in the number of ASN pupils is clear and so too is the evidence about the accompanying concerns among teachers and parents and among pupils. We should not forget that part of the reason for the increase is better diagnosis—that is a good thing—but we should be clear about the increasing complexities that schools face as they seek to provide the best education for every child, no matter who he or she may be. Part of the issue is about the interpretation of the principles of equity and mainstreaming, which are all well and good in theory but which are much more difficult in practice. I will be clear about the difference between equality in education and equity—equality is about offering exactly the same education to all pupils, but equity is different.”
“When I entered the Parliament in 2007, the Scottish Government introduced the policy of getting it right for every child—GIRFEC. It was seen as yet another acronym in the great usual clutter of educational jargon, but that policy actually mattered because it was—or it should have mattered, because it should have been—the scaffold of support for every single child across Scotland. I contend that any decent teacher or education professional should have GIRFEC in their DNA. It should not take a Government to tell us why it matters. However, as time has progressed, many teachers and parents have told us that the implementation of GIRFEC is being undermined by several key aspects of education, most especially in relation to ASN.”
“I mentioned at the start of my speech that this is a complex and emotive debate that is deserving of much more parliamentary time than it has been afforded today. In the limited time that I have available, however, those are the main reasons why, this evening, despite the conflict that I feel, I will be voting against the bill. 17:14”
“Finally, having read extensively about what has been happening in other countries where assisted dying has been legal; having sat through the evidence that Liam McArthur gave to the Finance and Public Administration Committee when he presented his financial memorandum; and, like other colleagues, having watched with great interest the debate at Westminster on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has seen the emergence of more flaws in the proposed legislation, I am not persuaded of the safeguards. That aspect is, I think, also the reason why the lead committee found it impossible to come to satisfactory conclusions, most especially as it found that there was no clarity about who would opt for an assisted death.”
“Rhoda Grant rightly pointed out that concerns were recently raised around the use of do not resuscitate orders, and it is not too difficult to see how voluntary action could lead to involuntary action. There is also the issue of constantly improving medicine: the fact that, all the time, more and more successful treatments are being discovered, including some for diseases that were previously thought to be terminal. That is not unrelated to the arguments about widening the eligibility criteria; we can witness what has happened in Canada. I note that the lead committee was worried about the broad definition of “terminally ill”, believing that it could potentially include those who might well live much longer.”
“As a result, I really worry about the bill’s implications for coercive situations and families who might put pressure on vulnerable relatives to end their lives, perhaps for financial reasons, particularly in an ever more difficult fiscal climate, or for reasons that suit their own circumstances rather than those of the patient. In my view, society must surely ensure that there is a respect for the sanctity of life, and that must include the medical profession’s commitment to saving lives. I note that the medical profession is also conflicted on the issue of assisted dying— indeed, the British Medical Association changed its position from being against to one of neutrality—but I worry about a situation in which we hand the ultimate power to doctors.”
“I sympathise with those who tell us that the debate is all about free will and the right to choose, but free will and the right to choose can never exist in a vacuum. They are contingent on other factors, including being free from pressure and from coercion, and the fact that death, whether it is assisted or not, affects the rights of other people, too. I raise those issues because they have formed a substantial part of the concerns of so many people who oppose assisted dying, including many of those with a disability and in vulnerable groups, who believe that the bill would put too much pressure on them. I understand what they are saying. As MSPs, we deal with very vulnerable constituents all the time, and I hope that I have, personally and professionally, learned a great deal from the experience.”
“That is how it should be, because I come to the debate conflicted, understanding, based on my family experience, several of the key points that have been raised by those who support assisted dying, while also understanding the case against. It is a debate in which, over my two decades in Parliament, I have become more and more interested, and as such—I hope—much better informed, given all the reading that I have undertaken on the subject, and having listened to the many hundreds, indeed thousands, of constituents who have been in touch; I thank all of them. However, there is one particular aspect of the debate that troubles me a great deal, and it is the main reason why I will vote against the motion this evening. It relates to the protection of our most vulnerable constituents.”
“It is on these occasions when the matter under consideration is so challenged by complex ethical, moral, legal and practical questions that the Scottish Parliament is at its very best. We have heard some very powerful speeches this afternoon to confirm that. That is because, for free votes, the increasingly fractious politics in the chamber can rightly be put aside. In my past experience of such votes, including two previous ones on this topic, there has, among members across the chamber, been widespread respect for different views. Those views are always sincerely held, and many of them—as we have heard again this afternoon— are based on very personal reflections. I pay tribute to Liam McArthur for the very respectful manner in which he has introduced the bill and for taking the time to speak to so many colleagues, myself included.”
“So existential is the issue—I know that the First Minister has had the full details explained to him by various vice-chancellors—that it is no longer a question of if the current model will be abandoned but when. We cannot go on with a model that is undermining the very future of our colleges and universities and that discriminates against domiciled Scots because of the artificial cap on places. I will finish on that point and I hope that, in my future career, I will listen to debates rather than speak in them. 16:50”
“If there is one current example of the damage from fiscal pressures, it is what is happening in our university and college sectors, not just in relation to the high-profile case of the University of Dundee but in relation to the pernicious underfunding that is affecting college and university courses, teaching grants, research and the morale of all those who work in those sectors. Time and time again, I have heard from the Scottish Government that the ills of tertiary education have been imposed in the aftermath of Brexit or by pressures imposed by Westminster. However, ministers know, as do an increasing number of members of the public and other parties in the Parliament, that the current model of SNP funding—not anyone else’s model—is simply not sustainable.”
“I am not sure what economic briefings he has been reading, but it is certainly not those with a view from planet earth. For example, having read the programme for government very carefully, I can find no detail of how the Scottish Government intends to pay for its welfare spending, which is predicted to be £2 billion in deficit by 2030, nor, as the Fraser of Allander Institute pointed out yesterday, is there any real detail on the timetable for delivery of the mitigation of the two-child cap. Likewise, we do not have final details about the public sector pay deals.”
“The size of the state has burgeoned through the growth of quangos and a leviathan and unreformed public sector. Since 2022, we have had 500 additional civil servants in top pay grades—so much for a smaller and more effective Government. The programme for government, like its immediate predecessors, remains stubbornly fixed on the social contract. That is all well and good in theory, but it cannot be paid for. As every economic forecaster is telling us, the main reason is the deeper and deeper fiscal hole due to the exponential rise in the benefits bill, which is predicted to be £1.3 billion over the budgeted amount for 2025-26. The First Minister, yesterday and then today on the radio, was trumpeting the fact that he has public finances under control.”
“The Scottish Government must be much more focused on stopping that waste and it must think far more about the benefits of preventative spend. For example, many people in the world of sport are complaining about the cuts to budgets ahead of major events such as the Commonwealth games, the Tour de France and the Euros, when it has been said that it is wonderful that Scotland will be hosting them. Those people were assured of certain budgets in sport and, so far, the promises are wearing very thin. With regard to John Swinney’s promise in 2007 to ensure that Scotland had a smaller and more effective Government, the facts speak for themselves. The tentacles of the state in Scotland, particularly with regard to social policy, have only ever been increasing.”
“We saw an 8.3 per cent real-terms cut in the economy portfolio two budgets ago, when the real- terms increase in the overall budget was 2.2 per cent. There were further cuts this year to the enterprise, trade and investment budget and a failure to pass on business rates in full. I listened carefully to what the Deputy First Minister said yesterday and to what she said today—that inward investment is strong and that Scottish Enterprise is working hard to stimulate growth in the business sector. She also implied that, when it comes to the difficult choices that the Government faces, there has been less success with the skills agenda. I agree with her on that point, because there has not been nearly enough focus on cutting out billions of pounds of waste and replacing it with preventative spend.”
“He said that he wanted to focus on supporting business and on his ambition to deliver a smaller and more effective Government for Scotland. Well, that was then, and this is now. With regard to supporting business, over the past two decades, it has been a pretty dismal picture for the Scottish Government, although I note some encouraging signs from among business leaders, who believe that there is now a slight change of focus from the Deputy First Minister in order to listen and address a lot of their concerns. However, they might well be concerned because they have witnessed a progressively higher tax burden being imposed on hard-working Scots over many years, without the requisite improvement in public services or a widening of the tax base, which I know that the Deputy First Minister is concerned about.”
“can propose and lead, but cannot compel or dictate”, and that, as such, a programme for government should be one that “seeks to persuade, rather than one that asserts the domination of one party”.—[Official Report, 5 September 2007; c 1362.] He went on to say that the SNP should be judged on competence, on consensus and on vision, and that central to all of that was the economic strategy, which would involve lower tax and regulation on business, boosting the nation’s skills and boosting enterprise. Members can look back at the rest of the transcript of that debate. At that time, John Swinney was Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth. He made several speeches then on concerns about the weak growth in the Scottish economy and the fact that it was underachieving.”
“Barring political accidents—which can happen from time to time—this will be the final contribution that I make to a programme for government debate. I ask members not to get too excited just yet. [Laughter.] If my records are correct, I have spoken in every such debate since I was elected in 2007. I look back to that occasion, when the late Alex Salmond addressed the Parliament. He said: “a minority Government ...”
“I move amendment S6M-17437.2, to leave out from first “recognises” to end and insert: “believes that, after 18 years, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has taken Scotland in the wrong direction and made every institution in Scotland weaker, with almost one in six people in Scotland on an NHS waiting list, falling attainment, and thousands stuck in poverty or living in inadequate housing or on the streets; regrets that the SNP administration’s failure to use the levers that it has to meet statutory child poverty targets, tackle the housing crisis, reduce violence in schools, provide child and adolescent mental health services when young people need them, and prioritise skills development is denying young people a more prosperous and stable future; recognises that the SNP administration has had no industrial strategy or plan for skills, building a low-growth economy and delivering the lowest wage growth of any region or nation in the UK over the last two years; believes that this economic underperformance has had negative implications for public services and the living standards of families and working people, and that the Programme for Government lacks the scale of action needed to make Scotland’s economy work for people across Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to prioritise skills and regional economic development, reform Scotland’s enterprise agencies and cut waste, harness the power of technology to help business grow, and ensure that people get the support that they need to find secure work.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Lorna Slater to speak to and move amendment S6M- 17437.3.”
“It is clear that the SNP Government has lost its way, and its own incompetence has cost the people of Scotland dearly. We are faced with that reality, as the people of Scotland will be in 12 months’ time. It is clear that we can no longer have sticking-plaster solutions—we need a new direction for Scotland.”
“We know—because we have heard as much today, and in yesterday’s debate—about the litany of broken promises from the Government over the past 18 years when it comes to tackling the challenges that exist in our NHS and in education, and delivering a social security system that works. This programme for government—the last one before an election—is devoid of change and policies that would make a tangible difference on the issues that have been raised by the Wise Group and many others. There are no new promises, and no clear actions to end what has become a managed decline. If the SNP had the ideas to fix the crisis in our NHS and the housing emergency, and to raise attainment and stop violence in schools, it would have delivered those policies by now.”
“The First Minister concluded his statement yesterday by saying that the Government would be centred on delivery and providing hope. We really have to ask ourselves what the Government has been doing for 18 years if only now, one year from an election, it is centred on delivery and focusing on hope. One might forgive people for thinking that the hope and optimism that many felt in 2007 might now be realised and that, after all the reports, independent inquiries, working groups, pilots and consultations that the Government has put forward over that 18-year period, the type of radical reform that is required might finally be round the corner. However, I do not think that anyone will be holding their breath waiting for that reform to delivered.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: Given what he says, Paul O’Kane will, I hope, welcome the nearly £2 million that the Scottish Government recently invested in the Wise Group to assist in exactly that work, which it has been doing exceptionally well, and welcome the focus that the First Minister has put on whole-family support and the expansion of the fairer futures partnerships to do what Mr O’Kane talks about—public service reform. Paul O’Kane: Of course I welcome investment in things such as relational mentoring, which are extremely important, but the point that the Wise Group is trying to make is that, after 18 years of this Government, there are still serious challenges in how public services are delivered, in how we know who is in need of support and in how that support is pushed down into communities more widely.”
“I appreciate that the Liberal Democrats cover much of that in their amendment, but it is worth referencing, because, too often, people experience services not as a safety net but as a maze. We have spent years trying to define and redefine poverty when, in truth, we know what needs to happen, and we learn by doing. The Wise Group has spoken about investing in public sector reform, investing in services around people, investing in relationships and not just transactions and focusing on what works.”
“The SNP is not willing to spell out how it would pay for the investments resulting from decisions made in the UK budget, or the £5 billion that was invested in the Scottish Government’s own budget—there are no answers from the SNP on that. Equally, it is clear that there is no plan from the Conservatives on how they would ensure stability and investment in public services here in Scotland. We seek not only to debate the economy but to ensure that the economy has a strong underpinning so that we can invest in a more socially just and fairer Scotland. Those noble ambitions have been held by the Government for 18 years now, but there has been a lack of progress and achievement in that space. It is very telling that the Wise Group has noted its concerns about the structural problems with public services in Scotland.”
“I do not disagree with this part of Paul O’Kane’s contribution, but does he accept that the UK Labour Government is making it that much more difficult to inspire growth with its national insurance increase, which is a tax on jobs, because it ensures that employers are not able to take on as many people as they would otherwise? Paul O’Kane: Ms Smith and I have debated this issue many times. She knows the inheritance that was faced by the UK Labour Government when we came to office, and she cannot get away from the appalling situation with the public finances that was left by her party. The reality is that there is a cosy consensus between the SNP and the Conservatives on these and many other issues.”
“Will the Deputy First Minister give way? Kate Forbes: Over this session of Parliament, to December 2024, we supported the completion of almost 35,000 affordable homes, including more than 26,000 for social rent, and we have brought digital connectivity to some of the hardest-to-reach areas in Scotland. Between April 2024 and the end of January 2025, we delivered not only the 64,000 additional national health service appointments and procedures that we promised, but 11,500 more than had been planned. Those achievements and many more than can be listed in the debate are the record of a Government that is committed to action and has delivered for the people of”
“I move amendment S6M-17242.3, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert: “notes the most recent concerns highlighted by both the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Scottish Fiscal Commission about the projected substantial increases in UK and Scottish welfare budgets, the resulting fiscal pressures, and the unsustainability of these budgets in the current economic circumstances, and expresses its deep concern that neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government has delivered policies that will address the high levels of economic inactivity or policies that will promote sustained economic growth.” 15:15”
“I take Liz Smith's point, and we need to be careful about the issue, but I caution against that comparison. Liz Smith: We do need to be careful, because the point has been raised by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I am very aware of the saying that all political careers end in failure. That is an adage that I am trying to avoid for at least another year, but it is a message to those who are leading Governments just now. When we do not listen to what the public, business and some of the best advisers are saying, that is exactly what happens—our careers will end in failure. I strongly urge us to guard against that. We must take the issue of social security very seriously, whether we are in Scotland or the rest of the UK, because we simply cannot go on as we are.”
“Finally, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has warned of the introduction of light-touch reviews in Scotland and the deliberate avoidance of in- person checks, which is a big factor in rising costs. It points out that only 2 per cent of reviews in Scotland are turned back, whereas 16 per cent are turned back in England. Shirley-Anne Somerville: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Liz Smith: I will, but I think that I am nearly out of time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Very briefly, cabinet secretary. Shirley-Anne Somerville: I thank Liz Smith for her contribution so far, much of which I agree with. However, the comparison that she has just made is unfair, because the 2.2 per cent figure is to do with cases that were not due for a renewal and were moving from PIP to ADP. That is why there is a difference.”
“Doug Smith believes that Scotland is losing out on major UK and international contracts because we are increasingly seen as uncompetitive. He also cites severe warnings about the fact that Scotland does not have anywhere near the trained workforce that we need to have in order to ensure that we can move forward. It is all very well for the SNP to have a go at the Labour Party about its welfare reforms—I agree, up to a point—but it also needs to look closer to home, not just in terms of the ballooning welfare bill in Scotland, about which Scottish ministers seem remarkably complacent, given the effect on the Scottish budget, but with regard to the news that, in the current economic conditions, we are struggling to bring people back into the workforce, which is not acceptable to me.”
“That is what is happening with regard to the current serious debate about higher education funding in Scotland, where sound economics tells us exactly what should be happening but, because of politics, it is not happening. Last Friday, the latest quarterly economic indicator from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, published in partnership with the Fraser of Allander Institute, revealed that business confidence has taken a serious dent as a result of soaring taxes, increased labour costs and increased energy costs, to say nothing of the impacts of the international trade wars. Doug Smith, the vice-president of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, went as far as to say that “The cost of doing business is simply unsustainable” and that “Employers are being punished in every direction”.”
“Our Finance and Public Administration Committee knows all about that because, of course, the same can be said about the situation in Scotland, where there is a lack of joined-up thinking when it comes to industrial policy. All of that leaves the public rather bewildered and, in some cases, very angry. I do not pretend for a minute that the previous Conservative Government can take any of the moral high ground when it comes to stimulating necessary economic growth, which is so desperately needed to increase gross domestic product. I have spoken before about the damage of the Johnson and Truss years with regard to the relationship between Government and financial institutions—exactly the same problem that is now to the fore in the United States, with politics getting in the way of sound economics.”
“For example, as moves are made to get more people back into work in some areas, why would we burden employers with higher national insurance charges, which serve only to increase their costs, making it more difficult to hire new labour, and why would we allow new employment legislation—the Employment Rights Bill—to make it more difficult for employers to take on workers? That does not make sense to me, nor does it make sense to people who genuinely want to get back into the labour market or to all those entrepreneurs who are willing to invest in the necessary training schemes. Craig Hoy was quite right to point out the employability aspect of the issue that we are discussing. As well as that, there is a lack of coherent strategy for the future role of the state, especially in terms of public sector reform.”
“Liz Kendall is quite right to raise the concerns that she has raised, and I do not believe that anyone in any party should deny that, because it is high time that we addressed the issue of how the current system is creating perverse incentives. That is something that we cannot have. If social justice is the defining philosophy of the Labour Party, as many of its founding fathers and current members of Parliament have claimed, it is pretty hard to square that with the spring budget— or the mini-statement, as many commentators rightly prefer to call it. That is because, as virtually all social policy commentators have said, the Government’s policies are disproportionately hitting the poor and the more vulnerable. The issue goes further than that, however, as there is a lack of coherency and planning around Labour’s policy making.”
“We should not forget that the backdrop to that in Scotland is the fact that we will face a deficit of £1.3 billion in the block grant adjustment. The second issue is that the current system is not addressing the growing problem of economic inactivity. We know from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that only a fifth of countries have a higher rate of inactivity than was the case pre-pandemic, and we are on the wrong side of that line. Our economic inactivity rate is a problem. We also know that, in the results of the Scottish health survey and the DWP family resources survey, both conducted two years ago, 34 per cent of Scotland’s population was classified as having a disability, compared with 24 per cent in England.”
“As we do that, we must have in mind two things: our ability to help those who are to most in need and our ability to ensure more sustainable routes back into employment. What is important in that regard is that the assessment of the evidence— and not just our party-political perspective—tells us what the answer should be. Which benefits are working well when it comes to better outcomes and why, and which benefits are not working so well? To be honest, as we must be, it is a very mixed picture, as members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee know only too well. I come to Labour’s welfare reforms. I agree with Liz Kendall that there are very serious issues in welfare. The first is the growing number of claimants and therefore the speed of the increase in the benefits bill.”
“All of that might seem very technical, but it matters hugely to our constituents. There has been very unhelpful confusion and uncertainty, which means that many constituents—rightly, as the cabinet secretary has said—are unsure of where they stand. This is where we come to the politics. Some believe that the problem would be resolved if social security was fully devolved to this place. Others take the opposite view, thinking that the issue should be rolled back to Westminster. We can all argue about our different perspectives—no doubt, those will be part of the manifesto discussions for the forthcoming 2026 elections. However, the fact is that, whatever our views, here is where we deal with the current status quo. It is therefore important that, in today’s debate, we focus on that context.”
“For example, under the changes to PIP, which are designed to save £5 billion in 2026- 27, claimants must score more than four points in at least one activity area to qualify for the daily living component. At the same time, the eligibility criteria for the health aspect of universal credit will now be determined by PIP assessment. That risks a conflation of the additional cost of disability with out-of-work income replacement payments. As we know, the eligibility criteria of the DWP and Social Security Scotland have, largely, been the same, irrespective of the process of engagement between agency and claimant. However, there is now a question whether the DWP will be able to effect a transfer to the adult disability payment or will reinstate PIP assessment in Scotland.”
“Of course, what matters is how effective we are in delivering benefits to help those who are most in need, in ensuring that the system is fair and non- discriminatory, in providing a genuine helping hand rather than a disincentive to work for those who are able, and, of course, in ensuring that the system is affordable. A great deal of debate has taken place around that topic and will continue to do so. As my colleague Jeremy Balfour has said on more than one occasion, we find ourselves in a tangled web of payments from one agency that are contingent on the claimant’s receiving benefits from another agency. Despite the better working relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP, that entanglement makes difficult the possibility of some changes to benefits in Scotland, because of the impact on reserved policy making.”
“I will put party politics aside for a minute, Presiding Officer. The recent debates about Labour’s welfare changes, highly charged as they have been—and I am sure that there will be more of the same during this debate—have also raised questions about the administrative relationship between reserved and devolved social security policies. That is because there are legitimate questions to be asked about how well benefits can be delivered in what has become a highly complex system in which many claimants are dependent on benefits that are paid by both Westminster and Holyrood.”
“Before asking the question, I declare an interest in that I hold a protecting vulnerable groups certificate. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the protecting vulnerable groups scheme, including the most recent data for the number of registered persons with PVG certificates. (S6O-04529)”
“The cabinet secretary is correct in saying that the Scottish system of welfare benefits will cost more following Labour’s proposed cuts to benefits, which will mean reductions in the block grant. However, let us be very clear that Scotland’s welfare system was costing billions of pounds long before Labour’s announcement. To take up the challenge that Paul O’Kane set us of considering the overall economy and fiscal sustainability, we need to have a serious debate in this Parliament about what we will do to reform the welfare system, to encourage more people into work and ensure that we are genuinely helping those who are most in need, not providing so much money to those who can easily get back into the workforce. 17:34”
“However, she has allowed so much unhelpful speculation to take place in the past few months, which has scared many people who are genuinely on benefits—many SNP members have reflected on that point—without spelling out the available evidence of what the impacts and the side effects will be. I will come back to the issue of welfare in a minute, but, given the expectations factor, there is confusion and it is grim reading for many people who are living with genuine disability—I have great sympathy with that view. What about the impacts of the spring statement on Scotland, aside from the relatively small Barnett consequentials of £28 million as a result of that change? There will be a £200 million cut in 2028-29 and a £435 million cut in 2029-30 plus the PIP reforms that will reduce the block grant adjustments for devolved social security.”
“There is a lot to be learned about the world economy and how the UK Government can interpret it. On top of all of that, there is the imposition of the highest-ever tax burden, the serious issues that have resulted from Labour’s national insurance tax on jobs—that is what it is—which is having particularly detrimental effects on retail and hospitality, and the tax increases on Britain’s farmers. The Reeves economy is not in a good place, and some of that is not down to external reasons. I do not blame the chancellor for addressing the welfare problems. She is right when she says that the size of that budget is unsustainable and that the current structure is not doing nearly enough to attract people back into the jobs market.”
“Liz Smith: Perhaps Mr Marra can deal with the supply side of the economy for me. Michael Marra: Liz Smith talks about the challenge caused by exogenous shocks to the fiscal rules. Is she suggesting that we should create more headroom in the fiscal rules? If so, how would she achieve that? Liz Smith: The fiscal rules are a self-imposed discipline that the chancellor set. With hindsight, when we measure the six-month period between October and now, they have proved to be extremely tight. That is a significant problem if there are exogenous shocks—which we sadly have to face up to quite regularly—because the wriggle room no longer exists. There are issues in that regard. Mr Gibson talked about some European countries where there has been a different approach to fiscal rules.”
“It is also why, given the UK Government’s self-imposed fiscal rules, there is now virtually no room at all for manoeuvre should the economy be exposed to any further exogenous shocks or substantial market changes, which, as my party knows only too well, can come about if the fiscal headwinds are ignored. There are some encouraging signs regarding new jobs in the construction and defence sectors, which I hope will also be beneficial to Scotland, and the OBR’s determination that reforms to planning legislation could add 0.4 per cent to GDP—it matters that that is the single biggest boost that it has determined for one specific policy. However, that does not detract from the serious problems in the supply side of the economy. Michael Marra: Will the member take an intervention?”
“The OBR reports that the internal growth problem is one third down to structural weaknesses in the economy and two thirds down to a fall in business confidence, the problem with higher interest rates—which Craig Hoy spoke about—and the expectations factor. As we heard at yesterday’s meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the OBR has also been critical of the late delivery of some aspects of Reeves’s plans, which has made economic forecasting even more challenging. We have heard that before in another context. As the Fraser of Allander Institute said, it really is not “credible” that the chancellor and her Treasury ministers were unaware of the OBR’s concerns about the underlying troubles in Britain’s finances. That is why it had to halve its economic growth forecast for the next year.”