Daniel Johnson
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations.”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever.”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated.”
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured.”
The complete record
Every one of 684 lines we hold for Daniel Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 14.
“What I have just announced has been baked in to the budget provision for one year, as well as the comprehensive spending review for future years. That is how it has been organised, which is why I can come to the chamber to deliver the statement that I have just made. I am conscious of time,”
“Can she outline what contingency measures will be put in place so that we can have confidence that the dualling of the A9 will be complete by 2035? Fiona Hyslop: I refer the member to table 9.01 on page 28 of the spending review. The figures for trunk road network safety adaptation, maintenance and improvement are contained in the spending review, as is the next one-year budget for 2026- 27. The review covers a number of years, so the figures for the A9 will have both capital and resource funding. The member will see the increase in the budget, which is reflected as we move to the latter stages of the spending review. I deliberately wrote to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to advise that I would be making a statement about whether we would be using MIM contracts or capital funded contracts.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. The SNP first committed to dualling the A9 at least as early as 2007—20 years ago. Despite promises to complete the work by last year, however, we are barely a third of the way through. The announcements yesterday and today merely commit to the completion being a decade late. While today’s announcement refers to using capital budgets rather than MIM or other financial models, we know from the Fraser of Allander Institute that capital budgets were cut by £850 million in the budget in the medium-term financial statement. That is a 10 per cent cut, despite exhausting the Scottish reserve and despite receiving more through the block grant. Can the cabinet secretary confirm, therefore, what impact yesterday’s cut will have on the A9 dualling and other transport projects?”
“The Government’s commitment is to strengthen and give flexibility to regional partnerships in Scotland to allow them to bring forward their own initiatives to further support their local economies. Young People not in Education, Employment or Training 7.”
“Annie Wells is right to ask about Glasgow. Output per hour worked in Glasgow is a third less than that in Edinburgh. Worse than that, since 2019, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester have achieved an annualised growth rate of 3 per cent, whereas Glasgow has achieved barely 1 per cent. Looking past the issue of mayors, it is clear that having combined authorities with powers over skills, transport, infrastructure, housing and rates delivers growth. I do not think that putting regional economic partnerships on a statutory footing will deliver that, will it? Richard Lochhead: The member has not yet seen the legislation on regional partnerships, which the First Minister has referred to in recent weeks. He should await the opportunity, if he is lucky enough to be re-elected to the Parliament in the next session, to influence that legislation.”
“The Presiding Officer: We are two thirds of the way through the time that has been allotted for questions but have not yet reached half of those who would like to put a question. I would be grateful for concise questions and responses and for the ability for us to hear one another.”
“Shona Robison: In my budget, I have set out more than £320 million of support through transitional relief and RHL relief, through our passing on the vast bulk of consequentials for business that we have received. To go further, we would have to take money from other areas of the budget, and I was loth to do so. Daniel Johnson is always welcome to suggest such areas. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you. Shona Robison: However, if the UK Government follows through on what it has briefed to the media about additional support for hospitality, which would result in further consequentials, we will look to further support the hospitality sector in Scotland. I have given that commitment several times this afternoon.”
“Before the budget statement, certain hospitality businesses faced huge rates increases of 300 to 400 per cent. Given the huge scale of such increases, a 15 per cent discount means that they will still face a huge increase in their rates bills. Why has the Scottish Government not decided to use its powers over assessors to pause the revaluation and introduce a fairer assessment for hospitality businesses? Shona Robison: In England, because of the loss of the 40 per cent relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, the effective relief is now 10 to 12 per cent. The 15 per cent RHL relief in Scotland is, therefore, competitive in comparison— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another.”
“We often quote the Adam Smith principles of equity, certainty, convenience and economy. Fundamentally, equity means that taxation should be based on the revenue that is raised. It strikes me that, given the contrast in the shares that are contributed by each sector despite their economic contribution, that tax is unfair and overdue for reform. It is exactly that reform—ensuring that sectors pay their fair share—that Labour is committed to introducing when we form the next Government, after May. I move amendment S6M-20295.2, to insert at end: “; believes that the current business rates system is not fit for purpose, and calls on the Scottish Government to create a new system that levels the playing field between the high street and online giants, better incentivises investment, tackles empty properties and supports entrepreneurship.” 16:19”
“A licensed premises in Scotland with an RV of £35,000, entering the new year, faces a loss to the tune of £33,000 in support that it would have received if it were in England. Likewise, a premises with a rateable value of £75,000 would have received £80,000, cumulatively. However, it is not just about those individual impacts. Sectorally, it is a form of taxation that is unfair. Retail and hospitality share a burden of 22 per cent of the total rates bill, despite the fact that their economic contribution is just 10 per cent. Hospitality has an 8 per cent share of the rates bill, despite the fact that its overall contribution to the economy is just 4 per cent. That tax is unfair not just with regard to the most recent valuation; it is fundamentally irrational and does not land fairly with businesses.”
“Either the assessors are independent—and the valuations are arrived at independently—in which case, he can, absolutely, make observations about the scale of the impact, say what analysis has taken place and tell Rachael Hamilton the calculation of the number of small businesses that will be taken out of the small business bonus scheme—or they are not. This Is a nonsense. Acknowledging the concern or the potential impact has nothing to do with the budget— absolutely, I would not expect those details to be released. The minister cannot seriously stand up and say that he can make no further comment other than to acknowledge the concerns. That is a nonsense. It is true that Scotland has had the least generous business rate support in the UK.”
“I will not, however, tolerate the shouting down of the person who has the microphone. Minister, please be brief. Mr Johnson, I can give you the time back. Ivan McKee: We do things differently in this Parliament—of course, with due respect to processes, procedures and the Presiding Officer. I do not know whether Daniel Johnson is suggesting that, in advance of our budget next week, I should be giving details of what will be in that budget on the policy of NDR. That would be a ridiculous suggestion from someone who is supposed to be a front-bench spokesman for the Labour Party. Daniel Johnson: Not only has the minister exposed this afternoon the fact that he does not understand how the fiscal framework works, he is now exposing the fact that he does not understand how non-domestic rates work.”
“The fact that the minister referenced the revaluation only in passing, and that he noted the concerns, is, frankly, a slap in the face to many of the businesses that are facing an increase as well. I am happy to give way now, if the minister wishes to address that point. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, please be brief. Ivan McKee: I know that the policy of the UK Labour Government is to leak everything in its budget in advance, then publish the full budget online before the speech has even been delivered. [Interruption.] However, in the Scottish Parliament, we do things differently. [Interruption.] As a Government, we are absolutely not going to release details of— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, could you resume your seat for a second? I can allow a little latitude ofr reactions to what is being said.”
“I know that it is devastating because, more than 10 years ago, I faced exactly the same situation, when my rateable value went up, inexplicably, by 300 per cent. I had to face that down through the appeals process, at a cost of thousands of pounds, despite the fact that, based on the documentation that was provided by the assessor, I could see that the way that my rateable value had been arrived at was entirely synthetic. Businesses that neighboured mine saw no similar increases. The ultimate reason for the assessor putting up our rateable value was that a stairway had been blocked up, changing the entrance to that business. That stairway had been blocked up in 1972, but that revaluation took place in 2010. That is the system that we are facing.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. What we have just heard from the minister is quite extraordinary. It is extraordinary because the Conservatives have, quite rightly, brought to the chamber an issue that is of huge importance and great concern to many businesses right across the country and in every member’s constituency and region. In the weeks and months leading up to Christmas, many businesses in hospitality, retail and other areas were hit with a bombshell—an increase in rateable value of between 100 and 400 per cent— Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: Before I do so, let me finish my point. That increase will have come as a devastating blow.”
“We have always been clear about the need for cross-party engagement on tax and spending. Credible and realistic alternatives are always welcome when put forward with honesty and transparency. I hope that we will see some of that in the discussions that we have in the chamber on this year’s budget, but I am sad to say that we have not seen much of it this afternoon. I ask the Parliament to recognise the importance of credibility in the tax proposals that are made by any other party in the chamber, and to support the Government’s amendment ahead of our tax and spending plans being set out next week, on 13 January. 15:52”
“I also note that Scotland’s unemployment rate is consistently significantly lower than that of the rest of the UK. Daniel Johnson: Will the minister give way? Ivan McKee: Does Daniel Johnson have some numbers? Daniel Johnson: The minister asks whether I have some numbers. Has he consulted the Scottish Fiscal Commission? How do the facts that he provided relate to 2016, which is the year that income tax devolution is baselined against? Ivan McKee: I am talking about 2025 and not 2016. I have given him the numbers. If he is going to come to the debate, he should bring the numbers in order to have a proper debate about them. Ultimately, governing is about making real decisions and not gestures. It is about balancing the need to raise revenues and fund essential services with the impact that that has on taxpayers and households.”
“Daniel Johnson talked about facts, so I have pulled up in front of me the data that I have on the economic growth rate of Scotland versus the UK’s, which is the latest available three-month-on-three- month growth rates. In October 2025, Scotland’s growth rate was 0.2 per cent, whereas the UK’s was -0.1 per cent, but perhaps that was a one-off. However, we then see that, in September last year, Scotland’s growth rate was 0.2 per cent and the UK’s was 0.1 per cent—the rate in Scotland was double. The month before, in August 2025, Scotland’s growth rate was 0.5 per cent, which was more than double that of the UK’s at 0.2 per cent. In July 2025, Scotland’s growth rate was 0.5 per cent, which was more than double the UK rate of 0.2 per cent.”
“The importance of the cost of living situation was a point that Jamie Greene made correctly—I think that it was the only correct point that he made. I do not know whether he was suggesting that it would not cost us £1.7 billion if the Scottish Government cut taxes to the same level as the UK Government, because of course it would. There is also the fact that, although people are leaving Scotland, more people are coming into Scotland from the rest of the UK than are leaving to go down south. I want to mention Meghan Gallacher’s points. There is now some clarity on where the Tories would save that money. They are against free things: free tuition, free prescriptions, free bus travel for 2 million Scots and the free baby box. Getting clarity on that has not been unhelpful.”
“We all remember the turmoil caused by the Liz Truss mini-budget, with its promises of tax cuts without a clear plan to pay for them. Jamie Hepburn reminded us of that. I ask anyone who has taken part in the debate to consider whether they have heard a credible plan from the Conservative party to fund a £1 billion reduction to the Scottish budget next year. Patrick Harvie, among others, highlighted clear examples—in relation to the housing budget, the Scottish child payment and others—that would not even cover that £1 billion cut. An area of consensus is the recognition of the importance of doing what we can to support household finances at a time when budgets are tight and demands on services continue to grow.”
“15:47 Ivan McKee: At a time when public finances are under pressure, it is more important than ever that we engage in constructive, serious, evidence- based debates about our nation’s priorities. I am not sure how much of that we have had this afternoon. The debate comes down to a clear choice: a responsible approach to tax and spending versus proposals that lack any semblance of clarity or a credible path to funding. I mentioned in my opening remarks that there must be an expectation that any party that proposes major tax cuts must be prepared to explain how they would fund them, but there has been an absolute absence of that this afternoon. Craig Hoy: We will! Ivan McKee: The Conservatives are shouting, “We will!”, but they have not.”
“In his speech, Daniel Johnson set out quite well the issue of people who earn just over £40,000 and pay a higher marginal tax rate than people who are far richer than them. Members on the SNP and Green benches, including Mr Harvie, should rightly question whether that is progressive. It will fall to the next Scottish Government to fix the mess that the SNP has made; to spend taxpayers’ money wisely; to account for every penny to ensure that the SNP’s culture of waste comes to an end once and for all; and to rebuild the public finances, public services, our NHS, our schools and our local services. That is the choice that Scotland can take in May with a Scottish Labour Government.”
“If we had a Government that was focused on growth, or that at least understood how to grow the economy, Scotland should have that money to spend. After years of chaotic short-term budgets from SNP Governments, they simply cannot be trusted with the public money. For Scotland’s sake, we should all hope that this is the last budget that the SNP delivers. After three consecutive years of emergency cuts budgets under the Government because it could not balance the books, the SNP says that next Tuesday’s budget will have all the answers. However, if the SNP cannot be trusted with our money, how can we trust a word that Government ministers say on any of this? Why should we believe them?”
“Lord only knows where we would be without it. What we will see next week is that any room for manoeuvre has been eliminated by the SNP’s incompetence. Craig Hoy: Will Michael Marra take an intervention? Michael Marra: No thank you, sir. We are all staring down a £1.6 billion black hole as we go into next week’s budget. Added to the SNP’s wasteful and incompetent approach, its abject failure to grow Scotland’s economy, as Daniel Johnson set out, has cost the budget dearly—more than £1 billion this financial year alone, owing to what the Scottish Fiscal Commission has termed the “economic performance gap”—and there are real consequences in relation to public services. Patrick Harvie is not alone in his opposition to economic growth; that is shared by the Government.”
“They have targeted middle earners—our nurses, teachers and police officers—with tax hikes to cover for their incompetence, and they have failed to be honest with the public about the complete and utter mess that they have made of Scotland’s public finances. Jamie Hepburn’s contribution was rightly critical of the Liz Truss unfunded budget that crashed the economy. That was £45 billion of unfunded spending. However, would he be at all critical of the £95 billion of spending demands that have come from front-bench members of his party or of the SNP’s opposition to the £45 billion of revenue raisers? That is a £140 billion fiscal adjustment. That is the kind of incredible position that the SNP is taking on the public finances. In contrast, since the general election, Labour has delivered £10.3 billion of additional funding for Scotland.”
“We need to maintain the commitment to progressive taxation if we want to provide investment in public services and real cost of living support for people. 15:43 Michael Marra: Having listened to the speeches from SNP members, I am more convinced than ever that they simply do not understand the mess that they have made of Scotland’s finances, let alone have a plan to fix it. They have wasted more than £7 billion of taxpayers’ money on ferries that do not sail, roads that do not get dualled and schools that do not get built. Their incompetent handling of our infrastructure has resulted in £1.3 billion of additional costs and 67 years of delays to vital projects.”
“Just like the Conservatives, Labour often calls for more public spending, but, when the Greens do that, we at least match our calls for spending and investment with serious, deliverable and workable proposals for the tax policies that would be needed to raise the revenue to make the spending commitments possible. Mr Marra must surely be aware of the problems that Labour has created for itself at the UK level. Ruling out changes to major taxes, alongside Labour’s fiscal rules and self-imposed constraints, has left the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a choice of which promises to break. The idea that, without knowing future economic circumstances or UK tax changes, the Scottish Government could rule out tax changes until 2031 is extraordinary.”
“He is aware that the Greens are the only party that disagrees with the fundamentals of that. We are often alone in arguing that growth-focused policies sometimes fail to achieve progressive distribution in their outcomes. That is why history shows that there can be periods of growth—even booming growth—while poverty increases. Even if we set aside that argument, the Labour Party’s failure to support Scotland’s move to more progressive taxation is striking. At first, Labour gradually accepted it, but without any enthusiasm. More recently, it has actively opposed changes to make income tax more progressive. Daniel Johnson: Will Mr Harvie take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Harvie is in his last minute. Patrick Harvie: I do not have time to take an intervention.”
“Extractive and exploitative rent levels are one of the biggest and most unnecessary costs that a great many people are landed with, but the Conservatives do not want to control rents; they want to let them continue to spiral. As for giving households the benefit of cheap, clean energy, instead of leaving people dependent on high and volatile fossil fuel prices, the Conservatives want to rip up climate legislation and abandon the opportunities from that cheap, clean energy. We can do so much more on all those effective ways of tackling the cost of living, but they all need investment, which is why they all depend on a progressive tax system. Before I finish, I want to say something about the Labour amendment. I know that Daniel Johnson and others want to focus on growth.”
“I know that there are people on the right who like to pretend that there is a hard and fast division between those who contribute to the economy and those who take from it, but that is spurious nonsense. The Conservatives’ plan would devastate the public services that help people to cope with the cost of living. The truth is that, even during this really difficult session of the Scottish Parliament and during the incredibly challenging period since Tory austerity was introduced, progress has been made on effective ways of cutting the cost of living. For example, in recent years, the Greens have cut public transport costs for buses, trains and ferries, and we could do so much more. We will set out plans for expanding free bus travel to under-30s. We can cut rents.”
“However, it is inevitable that, if we rolled back and reversed progressive changes to income tax, the biggest benefit would go to those on the highest incomes. The Conservatives say that they want to tackle the cost of living, but they would give the biggest benefit to those on the highest incomes. Craig Hoy: Will Mr Harvie take an intervention? Patrick Harvie: With a four-minute speech, I do not have time to take an intervention. The Conservatives want to fund their policy by cutting social security. Social security addresses the cost of living for those who face the worst challenges. Let us remind ourselves that most people who need support from the social security system are working—they are in working households.”
“It is a fact that Greater Manchester has experienced a higher rate of growth than Scotland by more than 1 percentage point per year, and its gross domestic product per head is now higher than that of Scotland. A decade and a half ago, the GDP per head in Manchester was lower than that in Scotland, so it has had a superior economic performance with fewer economic powers. That is the difference that focusing on the economy can make. Scotland is being let down under the SNP. In May, Scotland faces a choice between a Government that seeks to simply narrate problems and point in a direction and a party that seeks to confront problems, come up with solutions and make lives better for Scots. 15:39 Patrick Harvie: The Conservative Party has continually told us that its focus in today’s debate is on tackling the cost of living.”
“We should highlight teachers, police and nurses, not only because of the excellent work that they do and their dedication but because they pay a 50 per cent marginal tax rate. If people earn between £43,662 and £50,270 a year, they pay a higher marginal tax rate than people in the rest of the UK who earn more than they do, which is a disgrace. That we think that teachers, police constables and nurses should pay a higher marginal rate than people who earn almost £100,000 a year is a scandal. It is a sign of economic and fiscal incompetence on the part of the SNP, but it does not have to be like that. Other parts of the UK have higher rates of growth than Scotland despite having fewer economic powers.”
“When wage growth is faster in Scotland, we get more money to spend; when it is lower than in the rest of the UK, we get less money to spend. According to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, it is a fact that we have £1 billion less to spend, because economic growth has been slower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK since 2016. That is the cost of economic failure under the SNP’s Administration over the past 10 years. It is not an opinion; it is an inescapable fact. Not only has the SNP failed with regard to economic growth; it has failed in its administration of the tax system. SNP members are clearly in denial of the Fraser of Allander Institute’s opinions when it comes to the tax burden with regard to income tax. However, the issue is not only whether Scots pay more on average but how the income tax system works in Scotland.”
“Our difficulties with public expenditure and the choices that we have to make would become significantly easier, but this Government has let Scotland down and not lived up to this country’s economic potential. It is a fact that economic performance has lagged for the past decade. That is not a point of conjecture or a subjective opinion; we know that it is true because of income tax devolution. Since 2016, our economic growth per head has been lower than that in the rest of the UK. We know that because of the way in which the fiscal formula works. Jamie Greene said that the formula is complicated and that not many people understand how it works in detail, but they do not need to. The simple point is that the formula assigns income tax based on wage growth.”
“I will start on a point of consensus with the minister. I appreciate that we have the opportunity to debate the economy and tax. Unfortunately, such opportunities come all too infrequently in this place. To the extent that the economy is discussed here, it is done simply to point at other places and seek excuses, despite the fact that many of the levers that we have to impact the economy— concerning the skills system, the planning system, transport and infrastructure—are held here. That approach has demonstrated that this place has not lived up to its potential. Economic growth has barely been mentioned. If we had economic growth, many of the difficulties that we have talked about would be alleviated.”
“Both Governments are delivering results, but we are working hand in hand with all the interested parties in the Grangemouth community, including employers, the college, community councils and the local council, as well as Skills Development Scotland. It has been a fruitful process. Is it a blueprint for how we might want to continue in the future? Absolutely. The Deputy Presiding Officer: A large number of colleagues want to ask a question, so I would be grateful for brevity in the questions and the responses.”
“More than 140 project proposals came in. It could easily have taken years to go through those, but it has gone through that process quickly and has identified the two projects that it has been possible to announce today. Other projects will be announced, but we cannot talk about them yet. They include some exciting going concerns. However, it is not true to say that work on a just transition in Grangemouth started only last year. Such work had been going on for years through the Grangemouth future industry board, which Scottish Government ministers chaired. I was very pleased, in a spirit of working collaboratively with the new UK Government, to invite Michael Shanks to co-chair the Grangemouth future industry board. That shows that it is a joint effort that is delivering results.”
“What lessons have been learned so that that partnership can be continued, to make good on the potential and to unlock the amounts that the two Governments have pledged? The work in relation to Grangemouth highlights Scottish Enterprise’s interesting role in facilitating the addressing of infrastructure, utilities, land and connectivity challenges. Is that perhaps a model for how it can act in the future, particularly with the Celtic Renewables project? Gillian Martin: I warmly welcome the spirit in which Daniel Johnson made his remarks. It has been a highly collaborative process. From the get- go, I and the UK energy minister, Michael Shanks, have worked very hard with Scottish Enterprise and the unions to facilitate the deployment of the project willow opportunities. I pay massive tribute to Scottish Enterprise.”
“I, too, thank the minister for providing advance sight of her statement. The £3 million investment in MiAlgae is, of course, welcome. It comes with £1.5 million of investment from the UK Government, which forms part of the £14.5 million that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the budget, which will help to transform Grangemouth into a low-carbon tech hub. That is in addition to the £200 million that has been pledged by the National Wealth Fund. So, the minister is right: ultimately, this is a story of partnership between Scotland’s two Governments, and between industry, trade unions, the workforce and the communities. However, it is also clear that there was no plan prior to Petroineos’s announcement or the UK Labour Government’s election.”
“Therefore, I am asking for that sort of practical approach with, as has been called for, the standardisation of what a good diagnosis looks like, so that we can accept diagnoses that have been made elsewhere.”
“I do not think that someone should have to have a private diagnosis to get the treatment that they want, and I certainly do not want a system that relies on that, but we do need a pragmatic approach. I have had lots of conversations about that in recent months, and GPs will say that they are not allowed to do shared care any more, but that is not true. Health boards are clear that they are not preventing it, and even the local medical committees say that the guidelines that they have produced do not prohibit it. However, health boards, GPs and local medical committees seem to be undertaking some kind of mutual blame activity, and are all pointing the finger in another direction. We need a pragmatic approach in which it is recognised that private diagnoses are very often made by the very same people who would make an NHS diagnosis.”
“We also need new general adult psychiatric standards, and we need a four-tiered model for accessing diagnosis and support. Those are clear and practical points. Another feature of the report is its statement that we need to tackle primary care head on. In recommendations 3 and 4, the Royal College of Psychiatrists makes it explicit that we need to bring forward a structure and a means by which general practitioners can actively participate in prescribing. We have seen changes and advances in our understanding of the condition, which is critical. Let us talk about the other elephant in the room: shared care. The reality is that GPs across this country have stopped what was once the understood and received practice of entering into shared care on the basis of a private diagnosis.”
“However, the bulk of the recommendations in the report are on clinical pathways and access to diagnosis. Explicitly, recommendation 3 talks about increasing access to medication. I am not denying that medication is important. Let me be very clear, as I have been clear in the past: for me, as for many people, medication was the biggest single step that I could have taken to help me with my condition. Indeed, it is what many people approach me about, as they do constantly. They say that medication helps with their ability to hold down a job, maintain relationships with their family and deal with the chaos that ADHD often brings. The report also sets out the need for new guidelines, including from the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network, as we do not have any SIGN guidelines for ADHD.”
“Indeed, there is not one single neurodevelopmental condition that is not overrepresented at least threefold in the prison population. That is why the report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists is so important—it sets out a clear plan of what we can do now in wider policy, and in clinical action and policy, to address the issue. On the point about there being no need for a diagnosis, the report contains important recommendations—in particular, recommendations 1, 2 and 5 of the 10 that are made—on non-clinical pathways and how we can adjust approaches in education and wider public policy to help people with ADHD and autism. Those practical, reasonable adjustments do not need a diagnosis. Recommendations 9 and 10, which are about improving understanding more widely across the general population, are important, too.”
“There are 42,000 children waiting for assessment—that is a 500 per cent increase. We also have 23,000 adults waiting for assessment— that is a 2,200 per cent increase. Unfortunately, we have had to rely on the Royal College of Psychiatrists to produce those numbers, because the Scottish Government is not producing them. Behind those numbers is not just a cost in terms of the frustration and human misery caused by a failure to diagnose and provide support, but a real economic cost. It is estimated that undiagnosed autism spectrum disorder costs the economy £44 billion and undiagnosed ADHD £17 billion. In the prison population, 25 per cent are estimated to have ADHD against 3 to 5 per cent of the general population. There is a real cost to failure that we have to address.”
“Indeed, I find myself attending national health service briefings and other meetings at which I am not the only person raising the issue. Colleagues around the chamber find it equally important and raise the issues, too. That is fantastic. However, there has also been an odd flipping of the situation. Back in 2017, there was stigma; it was difficult to speak up and the Government often found itself justifying why diagnosis and prescribing took place. Now, we have public demand for diagnosis, assessment and prescribing, and the Government is explaining why those things are not taking place. Most recently— and we need to talk about this in the debate—the Government has been explaining why diagnosis is not required. That situation is dangerous, and we need to take care. We have to consider the scale of the problem.”
“I thank members from across the parties who have supported my motion to enable this debate to take place. The debate is important for a number of reasons, not only to discuss the recommendations in the report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists but to mark the progress that we have made. It is a little bit more than eight years since I first stated in the Parliament that I have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and that I take medication for it. Then, in 2018, I held, I think, the first debate in the Parliament to discuss ADHD by itself. We have made much progress. When I reflect on the context then and the context now, I think that it is now much easier to talk about ADHD. There is a much greater understanding and acceptance of it.”
“More important, what does he say to university workers who are contemplating a Christmas when they do not know whether they will have a job in the new year?”
“The First Minister will be aware that, over recent months, the University of Edinburgh has been embarking on cost-cutting measures, including 350 voluntary redundancies, salary freezes and reductions in hours. Constituents of mine have highlighted a communication that the university has circulated, which outlines the possibility of compulsory redundancies. The University and College Union estimates that one in eight jobs could be lost. However, it is not just about Edinburgh university. Yesterday, the University of Strathclyde announced plans for 70 job cuts. Does the First Minister accept that that is the result of long-term underfunding of Scottish universities by the Scottish Government?”