Mark Griffin
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“Driving down child poverty is a key priority of the Government and of the Parliament as a whole, but reviewing the targets that the Government is failing to hit does not seem to align with the rhetoric. The Scottish Government’s impact assessment of the child poverty delivery plan is that it will not meet the targets.”
“The minister set out the damage that is taking place in this country as a result of leaving a political and economic union, and there is nothing in his statement that I can disagree with. In his conclusion, he asked what we are prepared to do about it.”
“As I have said to others, I have engaged with and will happily continue to engage with Nick Thomas-Symonds, but if we consider that the potential benefits are 20 times less than the loss that we are sustaining, we see the impact.”
“We are content that there is a credible path to do so, despite everything that is happening in the rest of the UK and internationally. I go back to what I have announced, which is a review of the type of targets.”
“Our targets have driven our focus and delivery, but it is important to reflect on the investment that the Government is making in areas that do not impact directly on those targets.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the pay negotiations for 2026-27.”
The complete record
Every one of 217 lines we hold for Mark Griffin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Our targets have driven our focus and delivery, but it is important to reflect on the investment that the Government is making in areas that do not impact directly on those targets. It is sensible for us to take a step back to look at what we are measuring, ensure that we are doing it correctly and that we are measuring the impact on people. I assure the chamber that, as we continue with the review that will start in the summer, it will not distract the Government from the delivery of the expansion of childcare, the £2 bus fare cap and the other measures that I mentioned in my statement.”
“We are content that there is a credible path to do so, despite everything that is happening in the rest of the UK and internationally. I go back to what I have announced, which is a review of the type of targets. We are in a situation in which funded early learning and childcare and school-age childcare does not have a direct impact on targets and, therefore, the impact of that on families is not counted. Our whole family wellbeing funding programme, which is about disrupting and breaking the cycle of poverty so that we are changing systemic and intergenerational poverty, is not measured as part of an income-based target. The Government has invested nearly £2.9 million into school meal debt which, again, does not impact on our income-based targets.”
“Driving down child poverty is a key priority of the Government and of the Parliament as a whole, but reviewing the targets that the Government is failing to hit does not seem to align with the rhetoric. The Scottish Government’s impact assessment of the child poverty delivery plan is that it will not meet the targets. Key campaigners in the child poverty sector, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Save the Children, say that the plan may not even be lawful. Can the cabinet secretary say when a revised child poverty delivery plan that meets the Government’s statutory responsibilities will be published? Shirley-Anne Somerville: The Government does not intend to publish another child poverty delivery plan. I know that our current targets for 2030 are challenging and we are determined to meet them.”
“As I have said to others, I have engaged with and will happily continue to engage with Nick Thomas-Symonds, but if we consider that the potential benefits are 20 times less than the loss that we are sustaining, we see the impact. I welcome Nick Thomas-Symonds’s engagement, but where are we on the energy sector or the freedoms that young people enjoyed? On the whole range of areas, we will continue to press the UK Government to go much further. I am exceptionally disappointed in the Labour Party, which has veered off to what is, by any measure, a hard Brexit introduced by the Tories and endorsed by Reform. I encourage Mr Griffin’s Government—I say this in good faith—to be much more ambitious, and I urge the Scottish Labour members to join us in making that case.”
“The minister set out the damage that is taking place in this country as a result of leaving a political and economic union, and there is nothing in his statement that I can disagree with. In his conclusion, he asked what we are prepared to do about it. Can the Government set out a bit more detail on how we in the Parliament can pull together and work together, as we did in relation to the vote that he mentioned in his statement, to achieve that outcome? Stephen Gethins: Mr Griffin is right—10 years ago, there was an important vote in the Scottish Parliament that offered a compromise. I think that only one member of the Scottish Parliament out of 129 backed leaving the EU, which speaks to the greater collective wisdom in this place than in the Westminster Parliament.”
“I had a helpful discussion with Roz Foyer, who joined the event about public service reform that the cabinet secretary and I attended on Monday; we talked more about how we can have that strategic overview. I would be more than happy to hear any suggestions that Mr Griffin has on that. We must work in close partnership with local government and our trade unions. The member’s point in relation to the disruption of services is well made. I will take forward the suggestions that he has made to that end in our engagement with COSLA next Thursday. Earnings Growth 4.”
“Jenny Gilruth: Mark Griffin will know that, in my former role, I spent a good amount of time with our teaching trade unions and local government, trying to negotiate an agreement in relation to reducing teachers’ class contact. Through joint negotiation, we were able to do that, but it took time. Unnecessary stress was caused for parents and carers because we thought that we might be in receipt of some industrial action—so we had to work at pace to get to that point. As the Deputy First Minister, I do not want to get to that stage. I want us to have a much more strategic approach to negotiating in relation to pay. Work on that was led across the Government by my predecessor and I want to continue it.”
“Mark Griffin: After years of cuts, councils are struggling to put an offer on the table that meets the cost of living pressures for their staff. Year after year, we have disputes and disruptions—there has been rubbish piling up on Edinburgh streets during the festival and school and nursery closures—and, annually, there is intervention from the Government to resolve them. What more constructive, regular discussions can happen between national and local Government to break the cycle of disputes and late interventions to solve them after the public has already faced disruption? How does the Government plan to formalise those discussions?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the pay negotiations for 2026-27. (S7O-00030) The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government (Jenny Gilruth): I had an introductory meeting with COSLA on 28 May and I will meet it again, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform, next Thursday. Although the Scottish Government has no formal role in local government pay negotiations, we worked closely with COSLA to confirm funding flexibilities and additional funding. That allowed COSLA to provide a fair and affordable two-year pay deal, which was worth 7.64 per cent across 2025-26 and 2026-27.”
“The most crucial point is that the staff are worried about the premature babies being born in Lanarkshire without that intensive care unit. In closing, I say this in the most collegiate, sensitive way I can to the new health team: it is not too late to review and reverse that decision. 16:31”
“Without their skill, expertise and support, my wife and daughter would not be alive today. The best way to recognise them is to ensure that they are supported, protected and strengthened. They are there for tiny, premature babies, like Rosa, who are yet to be born, but the Government has proposed downgrading that neonatal intensive care unit. Doing that will mean that the smallest and sickest babies will travel further and wait longer for life-saving services. That will separate families at the most vulnerable time in their entire lives. The staff at Wishaw have already shown what excellence looks like, with their award-winning, life-saving care, but they do not feel supported. They do not feel as though their service is being invested in, and they have no certainty about their future.”
“This week’s figures show that the number of private healthcare admissions in Scotland is at a record high for the fifth consecutive year, with Scotland seeing the sharpest increase anywhere in the United Kingdom. That indicates the extreme stress that the NHS is under and, more importantly, the real stress that people are under as they live with conditions while desperately waiting for treatment. Labour founded the NHS on the principle that healthcare should be available to all, according to need, but Scots are being forced to pay out of their own pockets for healthcare that they have already funded through their own tax contributions. We should take that seriously as a huge flashing red warning light for our NHS. I pay particular tribute to a certain group of staff: the staff of the neonatal and obstetrics unit at Wishaw hospital.”
“They deserve the ambitions for the next five years to be set out in detail in Government motions. They want answers to the big issues that our NHS faces. They want answers for the more than three quarters of a million people who are waiting for tests and treatment, for the people who are struggling to get a GP appointment and for the people who have cancer or are worrying that they have cancer while waiting time standards continue to be missed. Healthcare staff, who continue to work under extraordinary pressure, want answers. For some, increasingly, the answer is to get into debt and to go private. Unbearable waits while experiencing debilitating pain are preventing people from going about their lives, going to work and caring for their families.”
“They are looking for more details on how our most treasured public service will be protected and how it will be there for them and their families when they need it most, because, for lots of people recently, it has not been there when they have needed it. It was as though the Government was going through the motions. It knew that it had to have a debate on the NHS in the first couple of weeks of the session, but it seemingly had nothing to say in its motion about how the NHS will be reformed and protected, so it lodged a motion that simply commends and thanks staff. That is not quite what staff are looking for. They seem to be being treated almost as a human shield in a parliamentary debate. They deserve far more than that from the Government.”
“At the start of a parliamentary session, it is normal for the Government to bring a series of debates on the big portfolios and issues and to set out its priorities. However, I find it strange that, in its motion today, the Government has almost nothing to say about its priorities for the NHS, beyond stating its thanks to and recognition of staff, as is absolutely right. I am surprised that the motion lacks detail on the Government’s ambitions. NHS and social care staff are looking for more. They are looking for details on how they will be supported to do the jobs that they love. The public are also looking for more.”
“Helen McDade raised her considerable experience of ME; David Green rightly raised the issue of maternity services in Caithness; David Linden flagged the cross-party campaign in recognition of the need for 24/7 thrombectomy services; Joe Long brought his long experience of supporting people with learning disabilities; Cara McKee raised the crucial issue of social care pay; Morven-May MacCallum is a powerful advocate for those with Lyme disease and chronic illnesses; and Laura Moodie raised the issue of access to care, particularly maternity services, in rural areas. I think all members will agree that they gave fantastic first speeches, and I look forward to hearing much more from them throughout the rest of the session.”
“Their everyday dedication, professionalism and compassion, often under the most immense pressure, show Scotland at its very best. I am grateful to all members who have contributed to today’s debate. We have heard many thoughtful contributions from members across the chamber. In particular, we have heard a range of excellent first speeches from new members.”
“In my first speech of the new parliamentary session, I congratulate you, Deputy Presiding Officer, on your election to your role, and I welcome members of the health team to their new briefs. I thank the people of Central Scotland, who have elected me to represent them again, and I also thank those who live in the West Lothian part of the new region. I am grateful for their support, and I look forward to serving communities across the new region by holding the Government to account on the issues that matter most to those communities and supporting them when they need me. However, like Miles Briggs, I hope that changes, particularly changes in delivery of NHS services, will make that less of a necessity for many of our constituents. Turning to the subject of the debate, I add my own thanks to Scotland’s NHS and social care staff.”
“We are also learning about the fact that although our other low-cost home ownership schemes help, they do not take away all the barriers. Different people face different barriers, and the first homes fund represents another opportunity to tackle those barriers. This morning, the First Minister and I went on a visit and spoke to developers. We heard at first hand their hope and expectation that the first homes scheme will immediately be able to help people who wish to become first-time buyers but who are not able to. We have tried to present the scheme in a simple way, and the property value threshold will help the people who need help the most. As with all issues in my portfolio, I will be happy to work with Mr Griffin on the further details of the scheme as we go about learning for the next round.”
“How will the Government ensure that the scheme supports housing supply, particularly in high-pressure markets, where there is concern that additional purchasing power risks artificially inflating prices? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I welcome Mark Griffin to his new post, and I look forward to working with him again. Today, we are presented with an example of the opportunity that members have to work together across the chamber. Mr Griffin has raised points about how the scheme should act and the lessons that we should learn. I reassure him that we have learned lessons from previous schemes. For example, the scheme will be available for homes with a property value of up to £300,000. In that respect, it is different from the schemes that have operated in the past.”
“I welcome the cabinet secretary to her new, updated role. I welcome any measures that are designed to support aspiring first-time buyers who cannot afford to buy a house, and I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that the first homes fund delivers for our communities. In that vein, will the Government provide an estimate of the proportion of recipients of the scheme who are expected to come from lower- income households? How will ministers ensure that the scheme primarily benefits first-time buyers who face the greatest affordability barriers, when the Government closed the previous fund on the basis that 72 per cent of recipients did not need to use it to purchase their first home?”
“I, Mark Griffin, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me”
“It is important that we remain clear about the purpose of the bill, which is to make the visitor levy work better in practice. The levy must not be considered to be a substitute for proper, sustainable funding for local government. For the reasons that I have given, Scottish Labour members will support the bill this evening, but we will do so with the clear expectation that its implementation will be handled with the clarity, engagement and competence that businesses, visitors and communities across Scotland deserve. 16:17”
“Throughout the passage of the bill, we have been guided by the principle that councils should be trusted to design schemes that meet their local needs. We should not consider councils to be just administrators of central Government policy; they are elected with their own mandates to design schemes that fit their communities. The improvements in this amending legislation will bring about such increased flexibility, which I support. I also note that the improvements that the bill will introduce were discussed at stage 2 of the original legislation’s passage. Although it is right that the Government has now acted, we should reflect on how we arrived at the point of needing amending legislation so soon after the original act was agreed to.”
“People who travel to Edinburgh to use medical facilities come here from other parts of the country. Does he recognise that there is an inherent unfairness in people from the Highlands and Islands, for example, needing to pay a visitor levy in Edinburgh for something that does not impact Edinburgh residents? Mark Griffin: I appreciate that that has an impact on those who travel. However, I have faith that councils will take humane decisions. What we are doing today is devolving power. We are not taking a national approach; we are giving the job to councillors and entrusting them to run schemes that are in keeping with the needs of their authorities. It is about time that the Parliament did that more rather than less.”
“The introduction of a flat-rate option reflects that simplicity and predictability are essential for businesses if the levy is to work effectively for them. That recognises the diversity of Scotland’s visitor economy. What works in Edinburgh might not work in the Highlands, for example. We have had a consistent position on the question of exemptions. We feel that decisions should sit with local authorities. A national approach risks undermining the very flexibility that the legislation is intended to provide. Murdo Fraser: Does Mr Griffin understand the point that I made a moment ago and that Mr Eagle made last week, which is that City of Edinburgh Council has no incentive to grant medical exemptions, because that would not impact its residents?”
“Given that, as the minister says, this is a short technical bill, I will keep my remarks relatively brief, in the hope that any brevity on my part will allow more flexibility to members who might be making their final speech in the Parliament. I thank the organisations and individuals whose evidence has been vital in shaping our understanding of this amended legislation. We will support the bill at stage 3, because we recognise that the legislation seeks to ensure that visitor levies are workable, transparent and responsive to the realities that Scotland’s tourism sector faces. Today, we are considering whether the changes that the bill makes to the original legislation will improve its operation in practice. We are satisfied that the changes that are set out in the amended legislation will give greater flexibility to councils.”
“However, if amendment 25 is not supported, I strongly encourage colleagues to support amendment 32, for the reasons that I have outlined. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 26 and other amendments in the group. 15:15”
“Nothing in them would prevent a visitor levy from operating. Local authorities would retain full discretion to run their schemes, particularly under my amendment 32. The amendments would introduce a measure of proportionality and common sense. Scotland’s tourism sector is not uniform, just as the country is not uniform. It ranges from large commercial operators to individuals who welcome visitors into their homes. Legislation that treats those situations in exactly the same way risks getting the balance wrong. I strongly urge members to support amendment 25, because I do not believe that we can wait three years for a review. I fear that, by that time, many of the businesses that I am seeking to protect might no longer be in the market.”
“I take on board the points that Murdo Fraser and Stephen Kerr are making. My concern is whether we should not give local authorities the flexibility to ultimately decide on such exemptions, rather than taking such decisions on a national basis. Given that local authorities know their areas best, are they not best placed to make such decisions? Stephen Kerr: I understand Mark Griffin’s argument. However, when it comes to the introduction of any new taxation, particularly given the straitened financial affairs of many Scottish local authorities, those authorities might be tempted to adopt such measures and apply them in a blanket way. These very small but important businesses—the microbusiness sector of the tourism economy— are worthy of our consideration, hence my lodging of my amendments.”
“Volvo Construction Equipment has announced that it plans to close its Rokbak business in the Uddingston and Bellshill constituency, with the devastating loss of 120 highly skilled jobs. The GMB trade union has written to ministers on behalf of the workforce, rightly stating that the loss of the Rokbak line would be a major blow not only to the workers directly affected but to confidence in the long-term future of advanced manufacturing at the site and in Scotland more broadly. Will the First Minister say what discussions the Government has had with the company and the workforce to explore whatever options there might be to save those jobs and the future of advanced manufacturing at the site?”
“Michael Marra: I continue to support the premise of devolved taxation. I think that it should be appropriate to the situation in Scotland and, on that basis, I press amendment 12. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“As I set out at stage 2, I am not persuaded that a mandatory 22-month notice period—or the well-established practice of setting devolved tax rates in bands at the Scottish budget—needs to be put on a statutory footing, nor am I persuaded that the levy needs to be subject to more stringent laying requirements than other devolved taxes or, indeed, the UK Labour Government’s building safety levy in England. Neither the Finance and Public Administration Committee nor the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommend having a statutory duty to publish indicative rates or making analysis a formal precondition to setting rates. For those reasons, we will oppose the amendments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Michael Marra to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 12.”
“That process is sensible but, as it stands in the legislation, it is not clear enough. The amendments are intended to give the sector as much certainty as possible. More than 10,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, and we must ensure that the bill will not have a negative impact on their getting the houses that they need. I move amendment 12. Ivan McKee: Amendments 12 and 13 are identical to the amendments that Michael Marra lodged at stage 2, and the committee voted them down. Taken together, these amendments would introduce new statutory requirements around rate publication and impact assessment before levy rates could be set.”
“Amendment 11 disagreed to. Before section 9 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 3 is on rate of levy. Amendment 12, in the name of Michael Marra, is grouped with amendment 13. I call Michael Marra to move amendment 12 and speak to both amendments. Michael Marra: My amendments 12 and 13 seek to hold the Government to its commitment in relation to the 22-month period. I am also keen to ensure a specific sequencing of events, which I think is critical. First, the independent sensitivity analysis should take place and then the indicative rates should be published, because that pre- modelling is critical to the setting. After at least 22 months have passed, the rates can come into force. Earlier contributions have covered the problems that would be associated with further cooling in an already sub-zero market.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 46, Against 67, Abstentions 0.”
“Michael Marra: The point of difference in this group really lands on the depth of the analysis that we are seeking and the fact that we are looking not for single national indicators but for something that has depth in different areas so that we can understand the varied impact of the tax in different parts of the country. To be frank, I think that much of the minister’s defence is spurious and, on that basis, I will press my amendment. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“I recognise the desire for continued assurance, but we have already provided that. Between two business and regulatory impact assessments and a third to come; strengthening reporting in the bill; continuous monitoring; and the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s independent fiscal and economic forecast, the Parliament already has a comprehensive and credible basis on which to scrutinise the levy now and in the future. I therefore ask members not to support the amendments in this group. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Michael Marra to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 11.”
“It is still not clear how such a person would be identified, nor is it clear why the SFC’s role as Scotland’s independent fiscal forecaster is not sufficient. Finally, I alert Parliament that these amendments would subject the levy to some of the most—if not the most—rigorous reporting requirements across the entire UK tax system, despite it being one of the smallest taxes in revenue terms. For the same reasons, the Government is also unable to support amendments 16, 17, 20 and 21, in the name of Mark Griffin. There would seem to be an assumption that the levy’s effects can be isolated from other factors such as interest rates, inflation, material costs, labour pressures, global factors and many others. An analysis that ignored those macro factors would produce subjective, contestable outputs and result in needless cost.”
“The bill already contains provisions for rigorous impact assessments as well as the further assessments to which we have committed later this year, plus the work that will be undertaken by the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which will deliver, in effect, what a further sensitivity analysis seeks. The SFC’s forecasting approach is sensitivity analysis in practice, with central estimates, risk analysis and alternative economic scenarios as standard. Asking for more would only duplicate what is already baked in, and additional tests would only extend the paperwork without any more information or benefits. As with the amendments that were lodged at stage 2, there is an issue with the mention of an “independent expert” in amendment 11.”
“Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer—Michael Marra is speaking to the amendments on my behalf this afternoon. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Okay. As there are no other members wishing to speak, I call the minister. Ivan McKee: With regard to amendments 11 and 14, in the name of Michael Marra, I am—as I set out at stage 2, when similar amendments were lodged—sympathetic to the aim of ensuring that the Government is properly assessing the impact of its policies. However, I have already committed to undertaking and publishing an updated impact assessment of the levy ahead of indicative rates being introduced in June. That will include more detailed analysis of how the levy will interact with parts of the sector such as rural house building and small developers.”
“I ask the Parliament to finally approve a competent bill that embeds in Scots law the principles of subsidiarity, local democracy and mutual respect. 16:33”
“Scottish Labour continues to support the legal rights and standards that are enshrined in the bill, but it is incumbent on the Government to get it right—to not just correct what the court identified but ensure that the additional changes that are now proposed genuinely avoid the risk of yet more delay. Local authorities cannot afford another constitutional detour. They need certainty, stability and, above all, a Government that treats them as partners, not administrators of centrally determined priorities. The bill should not have taken the best part of six years, and it should not have required pressure from COSLA and others to reach this point, right at the end of the session. However, that is where we are.”
“They have been asked to deliver more with less, absorb rising demand and inflationary pressure, and carry an unsustainable financial burden. They have somehow become administrators of Government policy rather than the autonomous decision- making bodies that they are. The Government needs to ask itself how it reconciles the language of local self-government with the lived reality of increasing centralisation, directed or ring-fenced funds for central policy decisions, and financial constraints. Rights on paper should surely be matched by respect in practice.”
“In May 2022, the then Deputy First Minister promised to work “at pace” to bring forward amendments. However, for years, there was no timetable, no amendments and no visible progress. COSLA highlighted the lack of apparent movement in early 2023. It is also important to say that the Law Society of Scotland highlighted that the delay “is not in the interest of good law making”, urging that any future bills that are dealt with by reconsideration following a Supreme Court decision should be dealt with within two years of that decision, to uphold that principle of good lawmaking. While all that has been going on—or has not been going on—the issues that local government faces and that make the bill an essential component of our democratic system have worsened. Over the past decade, councils have faced more than £7 billion in cumulative cuts.”
“The bill has always had a simple and widely supported purpose: to incorporate the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law, giving local authorities clear legal rights to require ministers to act compatibly with the charter, and to ensure that Scotland meets the democratic standards that are expected across Europe. It strengthens local autonomy, improves transparency and provides councils with a meaningful safeguard if their role is undermined. The bill was universally supported when it was originally passed, in February 2021. Getting it on to the statute book should have been the easy part. However, we are here five years later because the Scottish Government failed to act with any degree of urgency after the Supreme Court ruling in October 2021.”
“They are talking about that on the doorstep just now when they are considering their vote. This settlement does not empower local government—it leaves it exposed. Councils need proper investment in social care, workforce funding that matches pay commitments, sustainable capital support and a spending review that recognises local government as an equal partner in delivering national priorities and not as an area to squeeze every year. Until that happens, local government will continue to be asked to do the impossible—to protect front-line services while absorbing cuts. Scotland’s communities deserve much better than managed decline. 17:18”
“Flat-cash projections place core services at risk and do not offer the credible assurances for the future that are needed for local government. The consequences are already visible. If the SNP Government thinks that it is having trouble persuading SNP councillors, it should hear what people are saying on the doorstep right now about the cuts to councils. Continued cuts to non- statutory services, particularly culture and leisure, undermine high-impact investment in health and wellbeing. The housing emergency and rising costs of temporary accommodation add further pressure. That impact is being felt by the most vulnerable—the people who rely on those local services every day—and by communities that see facilities being closed, ignored and abandoned, their roads deteriorate, their parks fall away and their libraries closed.”
“When those pressures are not met, councils are left with no choice but to raise council tax and charges simply to stand still. This is not reform—it is passing risk downwards to local taxpayers, while expecting services to deliver more with less. The longer-term outlook is equally concerning. As Craig Hoy pointed out, local government’s share of the Scottish budget will fall, from 26.4 per cent to 24.8 per cent, continuing an over-a- decade-long trend of squeezing local council budgets in real terms and deprioritising the services that they provide. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports an average real-terms reduction of 2.1 per cent per year, which will amount to £472 million in total over the term of the spending review.”
“COSLA projects a £392 million gap in 2025-26, rising cumulatively to £780 million by 2026-27. The Accounts Commission forecasts a further £528 million budget pressure in 2026-27. Those are structural gaps that threaten the sustainability of essential services. Health and social care partnerships are under severe strain, with funding gaps up 187 per cent since 2022-23. Despite repeated commitments, the Government has not fully funded its own real living wage policy in social care and in early years education. Workforce pressures are compounding the problem. A 1 per cent pay increase for local government costs £132 million, which means that a 3.5 per cent uplift exceeds the entire uncommitted funding in the budget. Councils cannot resolve recruitment challenges, invest in prevention or provide stability for staff under those conditions.”