Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023

Official Report 906KB pdf

---

Programme for Government 2023-24

The next item of business is a debate on the programme for government 2023-24. I would be grateful if members who wish to contribute would press their request-to-speak button.

14:55  

As Parliament returns, I welcome back colleagues. I also want to say how good it is to see BBC Scotland’s political editor Glenn Campbell in the press gallery. [Applause.] Glenn is a formidable interviewer and is rightly respected by his colleagues and by those he reports on. I know that I speak for every MSP from every party in wishing him and his family well in the journey ahead.

Last week, I called on the First Minister to rise to the big challenges that Scotland is facing today, to ditch the discredited agenda of his predecessor and to be his own man, but what we have here today is very much the same as before. Far from the bold programme for Scotland that we were promised, we are getting the same tinkering around the edges on our public services; consultations and trials rather than promises and delivery; extreme Green policies that will devastate our economy and rural communities; and, of course, very predictably, the overwhelming focus on the Scottish National Party’s obsession with independence. SNP members are laughing. In the First Minister’s statement that we have just heard, independence was mentioned before education, before the national health service and before the economy. Humza Yousaf has already told us that independence will be “page 1, line 1” of the SNP manifesto and it is right at the front of the programme for government.

It could be so much better than that. With a £60 billion budget and the support of thousands of civil servants, this is the best that Nicola Sturgeon’s protégé can do. Where is the urgency, ambition and action? After 16 years of SNP government, our children get a worse education than we did. When they leave school, they will have reduced access to higher education and fewer good opportunities. When they grew old, they will be waiting longer for life-saving ambulances or on NHS waiting lists for essential treatment.

This reheated programme for government and the proposals in it show that Humza Yousaf’s Government has done nothing to reverse the decline that we have seen over 16 years of an SNP Government.

When Scotland needed a national Government, we have once again been given a nationalist Government. Instead of speaking to Scotland, Humza Yousaf would rather be marching alongside flag-waving independence diehards, like he was at the weekend, and he would rather be campaigning as the self-titled “First Activist” than governing as First Minister. The programme reflects that.

I will turn to the detail of what we have heard this afternoon. There are some slim positives that we would like to focus on. We welcome the commitment to finally tackle unsafe cladding. My colleagues Graham Simpson and Miles Briggs have been campaigning for action on that for many, many months, and it is right that action will now be taken to mirror legislation that Michael Gove in the United Kingdom Government introduced back in March.

Before my next point, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am the husband of a practising police officer. We welcome the pay deal that has been reached with the police and the fact that body-worn cameras will be introduced.

In addition, the Conservatives welcome the commitment to roll-out of childcare from nine months in line with the UK Government’s proposals that were announced in its previous budget.

However, that is where the praise for Humza Yousaf’s programme for government ends. Much of his programme was committed to by his predecessor. Far from relaunching his premiership, the programme digs in deeper into the mud of Nicola Sturgeon’s policy failures.

We were promised that this would be a plan of Humza Yousaf’s first real opportunity to show what his own priorities are, yet, after half a year in office, he is literally just continuing on from where we have been before. Instead, it is business as usual from this continuity Government and continuity First Minister.

The programme is also a lot of talk and little action. Let us look at some of the talk that we heard from the First Minister. He was patting himself on the back by telling us all that he had developed a new and stronger relationship with business, so let us see how that has been judged.

This week, the Fraser of Allander Institute found that only 9 per cent of Scottish businesses believe that Humza Yousaf’s Government understands them. What a reset it is when 9 per cent of businesses in Scotland think that he and his Government understand them. Only 8 per cent of businesses think that the Government is listening effectively to their sectors. The First Minister is not even listening now, but he is certainly not listening to businesses when 8 per cent in that survey say that the Government has closed its ears to them.

There were no commitments in the programme for government to pass on the business rates relief that has been given in England and Wales to help struggling shops, pubs and hotels.

The First Minister also spoke about supporting a thriving tourism sector. He will do that by shutting it down. Unlike the majority of his colleagues, I was outside the Parliament this afternoon listening to bed and breakfast owners who are saying that the legislation on short-term lets that has been passed and will come into force on 1 October if there is no further delay will close them down. That legislation will wreak havoc in the tourism industry across Scotland and the deaf ears in the Government will lead to those businesses closing.

The First Minister should be ashamed and accept that he has got it wrong again. It was right that there was a pause for six months to look at how that legislation could be improved. His Government did nothing in that time. If he will not accept the failures of the legislation and announce a further pause within the next week, the Scottish Conservatives will force a vote on the issue next week.

We need to listen to the businesses that will stop and go out of business. The Scottish Conservatives are listening to them; the First Minister is ignoring them. Let us ensure that their voice is heard in the Parliament. I hope that colleagues on the Government benches will also listen to their constituents.

Last week, the Scottish Conservatives published our own bold and ambitious plan to grow Scotland’s economy, make Scotland more competitive within the United Kingdom, deliver a national workforce plan and tackle regional imbalances through innovation and entrepreneurship.

Mr Ross talks about a bold economic plan that the Conservatives published, but that plan does not include dealing with Brexit, which has stymied our economy and destroyed many people’s lives. What does he have to say about that?

I made it clear when I announced the plan last week that we are looking not just at the coming months or years but at the coming decades. There are scary warnings about the future of Scotland’s economy not from Opposition parties but from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which said that, in the next 50 years, Scotland will not have the income to deliver the services that we have at the moment. We are looking into the future. Kevin Stewart and others can look into the past, but we need to be far more positive. We need to ensure that we grow Scotland’s economy. We will never get that from high-tax Humza and the current SNP Government.

There were opportunities last week and there are still opportunities for the First Minister to take on board the practical recommendations that would show that jobs and businesses are his priorities. However, he continues to be led by the extremist Greens, who do not believe in a wealthier Scotland. They want to shut down our North Sea oil and gas sector as soon as possible despite the sector supporting tens of thousands of Scottish jobs and contributing more than £9 billion to Scottish public spending.

The SNP and the Greens do not seem to realise that, if we were to withdraw from the North Sea, it would devastate communities across the north of Scotland and remove the biggest source of investment and skills for the development of renewable energy projects in Scotland. The First Minister should abandon his predecessor’s position, pull rank on his Green coalition partners and back Scotland’s oil, or else there will not be an SNP MP left in the north-east of Scotland after the next election. I do not hold out much hope for the SNP MPs in that area.

We got one mention of oil and gas in the First Minister’s statement, and do members know how many mentions of oil and gas there are in the accompanying documents to the programme for government? Zero. There is not one mention of that key sector for the north of Scotland, the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom. That tells us everything that we need to know about the First Minister’s priorities.

There was discussion about infrastructure. We are in a debate, and I am keen to take an intervention from the First Minister at any point, but particularly now, because he made a very clear commitment that his Scottish Government will fully dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness. I therefore ask the First Minister when that will happen.

There is nothing. I will give way to the First Minister, because this is a serious issue. The First Minister inserted the issue into his programme for government and claims that it is a big announcement, but there is nothing to back it up. This is a crucial infrastructure project that is vital for Perthshire and the Highlands of Scotland—indeed, it is crucial for connectivity across our country. Last year, we had the highest death rate on that road in 20 years, but the First Minister cannot say when his promise will be delivered.

The First Minister mentioned the A96. The SNP has gone from saying that it would fully dual the A96 to saying that there will be improvements. I welcome the Nairn bypass and the improvements from Inverness to Nairn that have been mentioned, but the A96 goes from Inverness to Aberdeen. What about the rest of the route? The previous promise was to fully dual the road, but now we are going to get only improvements along the way.

There is nothing in the programme for government about a long-term solution to the issue of landslides on the A83. Although we heard that six new ferries will be delivered in the next couple of years, we currently have a couple of ferries that are already six years late, so I do not hold out much hope for that, either.

In the time remaining, I want to look at some of the issues that got only a fleeting mention from the First Minister. On the NHS, he promised that he will make it easier for patients to see their general practitioner and that GPs will be more accessible. It would be quite good if his health secretary, who I do not think is in the chamber today, would meet GPs—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I missed Mr Matheson there. I mentioned him because he has refused to meet campaigners on the issue of GPs in my local area. I have written to him several times. They got in touch with me again to say that they had had a disappointing letter back from Mr Matheson. We also have campaigners trying to keep surgeries open in Burghead and Hopeman, and he is not willing to meet them, either.

It was interesting that the First Minister mentioned what he is doing to improve the NHS on the day that it was confirmed that there are now 820,000 Scots on NHS waiting lists, which is a new record. Back in March, when the figure had dropped, the First Minister said that it was “heartening” that waiting lists were going down, but the figure has now increased by 51,000. I will give way to the First Minister this time if he will tell us what his response is to the fact that 820,000 Scots are on waiting lists, which is up 51,000 and a record level. Is that heartening?

I thank the member for the invitation to contribute. I say to Douglas Ross that it is the case for every single person who is waiting too long that we do not want them to wait so long. That is why it is so important to increase wages for social care workers to help with the recovery of our NHS. What would never have helped our NHS to address waiting lists and waiting times is if we had had industrial action, as other parts of the UK have had, especially where the Conservatives are in charge. I hope that Douglas Ross, with any marginal influence that he has, will ask Steve Barclay to take up Michael Matheson’s offer so that we can mediate and ensure that junior doctors in England are paid fairly, just as they are here in Scotland. [Applause.]

I can give you the time back for that, Mr Ross.

I cannot believe that SNP members are actually applauding that. There we have it—NHS waiting lists in Scotland are at record levels, up 51,000, with 820,000 Scots on a waiting list, and that is the dismal response that we get from Scotland’s First Minister.

I will rush through the last couple of things that I want to mention. The First Minister said in his statement that he is willing to work with other parties. If so, please work with me and with Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour supporters, Scottish Liberal Democrats and, I know, SNP supporters who back the right to recovery bill. Yes, we saw a reduction in the number of drug deaths in 2022, but we still have the worst rate in the United Kingdom and, by a large margin, the worst rate in Europe. In his statement, the First Minister endorsed Gillian Mackay’s bill. He could do the same right now by saying that he backs the right to recovery bill 100 per cent and that SNP members will vote for it.

First and foremost, I have not seen the detail of the bill. If Douglas Ross has published it, I am more than happy to look at the detail. When I met him before the summer, he said that the bill would be published by the summer recess, but it has not been published. He is obviously still working on the detail. On the point about influence, will he please ensure that the UK Government takes an evidence-based approach and that, if it is not willing to be radical and bold, it at least devolves the powers to us so that we can take forward safer drug consumption facilities?

It is clear that the First Minister, in his programme for government statement, backed Gillian Mackay’s bill, which is not at as advanced a stage as my bill is, so he could surely do the same for the right to recovery bill.

There are two other issues that I want to speak about. At our meeting back in the summer, Humza Yousaf promised me that an agriculture bill would be coming to the Parliament before the Royal Highland Show. He told me that that is a big show in Edinburgh that lasts a couple of days—I know that; it actually lasts four days and I have been to it every year. The point is that the agriculture bill was promised before the summer recess, but we have still heard no more about it. We will have to wait another year. Farmers and crofters are crying out for the bill, and I know that Rachael Hamilton will say more about that in her speech later.

Finally, Humza Yousaf mentioned support for the police. I have already welcomed the pay deal that has been reached today. However, the comments about the police come from Humza Yousaf—someone who wanted the police to investigate a hoax video but who now does not seem to want them to investigate real crimes. That is what we heard in the north-east of Scotland yesterday. That is the direction of travel on justice from the SNP Government.

Today’s statement could have delivered so much for Scotland. There was the opportunity to reset the agenda in relation to business, the economy, our NHS and education. In all areas, the programme for government has failed. It is continuity from a continuity First Minister. It should be and could be so much better. Over the coming year, the Scottish Conservatives will scrutinise what comes forward and will come up with and offer the real alternatives that focus on the real priorities of people across Scotland.

15:12  

I will start with a point of consensus. I echo Douglas Ross’s comments about Glenn Campbell. It is fantastic to see him back on his feet, and we wish him and his family all the best.

There are undoubtedly some things that we welcome and support in today’s programme for government. The acceptance of Scottish Labour’s long-standing campaign to increase pay for social care staff to £12 an hour is welcome, but we would like to see the pathway to the fight for £15. We support the proposals on empty homes and second homes, even though we believe that they could go further and be stronger. We support the commitment to criminalise misogyny, as well as the proposals that the First Minister has set out to support those who are impacted by miscarriage. We also support the intention to improve partnership with business and to work on an industrial strategy, but that must be more than rhetoric. Businesses will judge the Government on delivery, not on bland promises.

The First Minister cannot hide from reality. The SNP Government has lost its way and has no clear direction, no sense of purpose and no central mission. It cannot escape from the fact that it is trying to clear a mess of its own making—16 years of incompetence and financial mismanagement. The truth is that Scotland needs a programme for government to match the scale of the twin crises that are hitting Scots—a cost of living crisis and an NHS crisis. It took the First Minister 22 minutes to even mention our national health service. The package that has been set out today is not good enough, it is not bold enough and it will not do enough to confront those challenges.

Families need a Government that is relentlessly focused on reducing the burdens on their household incomes in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Instead, they get a Government that will hit them with council tax and income tax rises. Scots also need a clear plan for bringing down waiting times and reducing waiting lists in order to confront the NHS crisis. Instead, too many of them are left waiting in pain or are being pushed further into debt by being forced to go private.

We needed a new vision and a meaningful strategy to fix the long-standing underlying failure that has only made responding to these twin crises harder—we needed a plan to grow Scotland’s economy. Instead, over the summer, we have seen the Government lurch from one scandal to the next, whether that be uncertainty over the SNP’s finances, indulgent spending on credit cards at the taxpayer’s expense or division on the back benches among those inside the SNP who are clearly uncomfortable with the direction of travel—or who can perhaps sense that there is no direction at all from the First Minister and the SNP Government.

The First Minister himself admitted that today was a bit of a relaunch and that things had to go well, but I have lost count of the number of false starts and rebrands that the First Minister has attempted in the past six months. When it comes to the substance, there might be an attempt to change the headline—as we have seen today—but that cannot hide a more difficult truth: the First Minister was a continuity candidate who is now left painting the windows on a Government that is responsible for 16 years of failure.

Anas Sarwar calls me a continuity candidate, but it would be helpful if he could hold on to one principle over the course of a summer without U-turning. We saw a summer of U-turns from Labour. Anas Sarwar now supports the two-child limit, the bedroom tax and the rape clause. Is it not the truth that, in the SNP, the people of Scotland have an anti-poverty, pro-growth Government, whereas what they have with Scottish Labour is simply a party that will do what head office tells it to do?

I can give you the time back, Anas Sarwar.

I am actually really pleased that the First Minister made that intervention. He would rather attack a party that has not been in government than look at his own record in government. One in four children is in poverty on the SNP’s watch. Just last week, we saw record levels of homelessness applications and children in temporary accommodation. There is silence among members on the SNP back benches when it comes to looking at the their record in government. Enough of the spin, the cheap headlines and blaming somebody else; instead, they should focus on their failure as a Government. [Interruption.] They can laugh if they like, but the Scottish people will get their chance to make their judgment on the SNP Government. I cannot wait for them to make that judgment, which will happen in Rutherglen and Hamilton West very soon.

Instead of being a reset, today’s statement reveals a tired Government that is out of energy, without focus and too distracted by internal squabbling to manage more than a tinkering around the edges. In the past 12 months, there has been a lot of superficial change at the top of the Scottish Government. However, although the ferry master might have changed, the boat is still not seaworthy. This is just another tired and rehashed programme from a party that has clearly run out of ideas.

Nowhere is that clearer than with our national health service, with a former health secretary waiting more than 22 minutes to talk about it. Across Scotland, 820,000 people are languishing on NHS waiting lists. We are two years on from the then health secretary, Humza Yousaf, publishing his NHS recovery plan. It promised to end long waits, grow the economy and create more capacity, but the experience of patients and staff has been the opposite. One in seven Scots is on an NHS waiting list; there are more than 5,600 nursing and midwifery vacancies; and the number of consultancy vacancies is up, too.

This is what we have come to expect from Humza Yousaf and the SNP Government: big announcements to get the headline but no implementation when in government. Promises to end delayed discharge back in 2015 were never met and are now costing the NHS £198 million a year. Commitments to end waits of longer than a year hang in tatters, with 77,500 Scots waiting more than 12 months for tests, appointments and treatment. Most shockingly of all, cancer treatment targets have been missed repeatedly since 2012. The failure to restore our NHS is a shameful failure.

A catch-up plan should mean waiting list numbers coming down, not going up. Scottish Labour has repeatedly called for a real NHS recovery that ends the cuts to primary care and prioritises mental health support being made available in every general practitioner practice and surgery; that delivers a proper catch-up in cancer, with a focus on faster diagnosis and an end to long waits for treatment; that prioritises community care and paying social care staff properly, because that is how we will end delayed discharge and improve hospital capacity; and which prioritises a real workforce plan that retains the skills and knowledge of experienced staff and increases the number of doctors, nurses and medical professionals in training.

We could have seen that in the First Minister’s programme today, if he had brought forward a new recovery plan for the NHS that would have got services back on track and dealt with the backlogs in diagnosis and care. Instead, we have heard old promises repeated and announcements that delay work that was promised years ago. There is precious little to resolve the problems of waiting lists, delayed diagnosis and workforce shortages that have left our much-loved NHS on its knees. Much like the one from two years ago, this year’s programme for government is rhetoric without reality. There is no plan to reverse the crisis in our NHS. The utter lack of ambition could not be clearer.

There is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality of the SNP’s plans, not only for the NHS but for economic growth and jobs. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, with families across the country facing far too many hardships. There are mothers in Scotland who are skipping meals right now in order to feed their children. That is the heartbreaking reality caused not only by Tory economic incompetence and failure but by SNP inaction and incompetence. The Tories crashed the economy and caused the hikes in interest rates that are bringing such misery to households here, but the SNP has not done enough to help Scotland. It is not just Labour saying that; a majority of Scots do not trust the SNP to act in Scotland’s interests on the cost of living.

Labour asked the Scottish Government to help with the cost of commuting by following examples from elsewhere and capping bus fares and freezing the cost of rail travel. We called for Scottish Water’s excess cash reserves to be repurposed as a £100 rebate on people’s water bills and we set out proposals for a mortgage rescue scheme to ensure that no one would lose their home because of Tory economic chaos. Each time, the SNP ignored our asks, deciding instead to exacerbate the pressures on households by proposing tax hikes. If the First Minister really thinks that someone earning £28,000 in our country is somehow well off rather than struggling, and can therefore pay higher taxes, he is completely and utterly deluded about the reality facing households across the country.

The First Minister keeps saying, as we have heard already today, that tackling poverty is the central mission of his Government. Let us look at his record: a quarter of Scotland’s children live in poverty; applications for help with homelessness have skyrocketed to the highest number ever; and more than 9,500 children—also the highest number ever—are living in temporary accommodation. Just today, it was revealed that three members of the Scottish Government’s Poverty and Inequality Commission have resigned, which is hardly a glowing advert for the First Minister and his announcements.

The SNP has lost its way. In 16 years, it has squandered the legacy of the Labour Government, which lifted 1 million children out of poverty. [Interruption.] SNP members can laugh at lifting a million children out of poverty, but both Scotland’s Governments are distracted and divided and are failing to deliver. Only Scottish Labour offers a fresh start and real solutions.

As well as our proposals to help households with the cost of living, Labour has a plan to cut bills by up to £1,400, to invest in the renewables potential of Scotland and the UK and to deliver energy security, clean power and a publicly owned energy company to be headquartered here in Scotland while also insulating 1.4 million homes. Making the most of those proposals will require partnership between industry and Government so that we can build a thriving economy, but today we have heard a speech that is laden with rhetoric but is light on practical delivery.

We have had a Scottish Parliament for 24 years. It is right that many have viewed this as a social policy Parliament, but it has not been strong enough on economic policy. That has left Scottish workers let down and feeling the pinch and has weakened our potential for growth. We must put economic strategy and growth, as well as social policy, at the heart of this Parliament if we are to confront both the cost of living crisis and the crisis in the cost of doing business.

We heard about a reset for business. In the past year, ministers have shelved several plans that businesses said would be damaging to the economy, including plans for highly protected marine areas and a ban on advertising for Scotland’s breweries and distilleries, and they have wasted money on the bottle deposit return scheme. How many of today’s announcements does the First Minister think will end up on the same scrap heap after costing the taxpayer millions?

We stand ready to put economic growth back at the heart of our politics. We stand ready to deliver a modern industrial strategy that will get people round the table and remove barriers to investment. We stand ready to deliver a green prosperity plan that will put investment at the heart of delivering a clean energy superpower, and we stand ready to ensure that every part of our community benefits from having a Labour Government in our country.

Every community across our country deserves better. Communities have been let down for far too long. Right now, they are being let down by two failing Governments—a morally bankrupt Tory Government and a financially illiterate and incompetent SNP Government. We deserve better than both of them. We deserve better than the cruel and out-of-touch Tories and we deserve better than a divided and distracted SNP.

Scottish Labour now offers the alternative. Only Labour can put the Tories out of number 10. Only Labour can bring our country together and bring about change for people across our country. Only Labour can tackle the cost of living crisis and save our NHS. Only Labour believes that our country’s best days lie ahead. It is clear that the public believe that it is time for change. We are ready to deliver the change that Scotland needs.

15:25  

It is my pleasure to respond to the First Minister on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, but before I do so, I offer our best wishes to Glenn Campbell. The warmth that he has received from members in the chamber is testament to the man that he is.

I will come on to the detail of what we have heard from the First Minister this afternoon, but I start with a priority that we heard nothing about. It is one that will, I think, dominate our considerations on the public sector estate for some time to come. Members will remember that I warned the First Minister, during the last First Minister’s question time before the recess, about the risks that are posed by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—a material that was used in public sector construction for decades. We know that roofs, walls and floors that are made of that material risk “catastrophic structural failure” that could occur “suddenly” and “without warning”. Scottish Liberal Democrat research revealed that it is present in at least four health boards and 37 schools across Scotland.

During the summer months, when schools were closed, there was a golden opportunity to get on top of the matter, but those precious weeks were lost, and now our children our back in class. There is still no central register of affected buildings, no strategy for swift wholesale replacement of the material, and no national fund for making it safe. Now, parents are sending their children to school anxious that they might be in an unsafe building, and patients who are receiving treatment are unclear about what is holding up the roof above their heads. I am not trying to frighten people, but we have to take the situation seriously and recognise its urgency. We cannot wait for tragedy to be the catalyst for meaningful Government action.

Many people across Scotland are still struggling to make ends meet. It is baffling, therefore, that the SNP-Green Administration seems to be determined to make things harder. Even as mortgages soar, food prices remain high and volatility continues in the global energy market, this Government has decided to hike rail fares. Last year, to great fanfare, it announced a price freeze, but that lasted only six months, and tickets are now going up once again and are set to rise still further.

If Alex Cole-Hamilton is arguing for no fares increase, is he also arguing that the workers on the railway should not get a pay increase? That is where their money comes from.

I think that there is a basic rule of economics here. If we make something cheaper, we will increase demand and fill the carriages. That will pay for meaningful pay increases. I absolutely support the claim of hard-working rail workers.

However, the decisions of the Government mean that hard-working commuters are being clobbered by fares, which discourages people from using greener public transport. My party wants fares to be cut, with new options for flexible season ticketing, and we want the Government to work with councils to explore new lines. The fair fares review has now been on the desks of four transport secretaries.

Worse still is that our Government plans to increase council tax. That could not come at a worse time. Council tax is utterly regressive and is based on property values from 1991—32 years ago. Ordinary people will be hit hard by Government plans to hike council tax, and a quarter of Scottish households will be forced to pay more. Far from scrapping council tax, which Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon promised to do at the start of their reign, Humza Yousaf and his Green Party colleagues are breathing new life into that hated tax. The proposed changes would see bills going up and services still being cut, with people paying more for less. The proposal would not offset the SNP-Green systemic underfunding of local government, which has devastated essential services and has punctuated every budget for years. The increases must be abandoned and local government must, finally, be fully and properly funded.

Driving down demand for energy use and fossil fuels should also be at the heart of our quest for net zero in tackling the cost of living emergency. After a summer in which fires have raged from Greece to Hawaii, no one needs reminders of the urgency of avoiding global boiling.

I turn to our natural environment. Many times, in this chamber, I have raised the increasing problem of sewage in our rivers and on our beaches. I am disappointed to have heard nothing on that subject from the First Minister today. We do not even know the full extent of the problem, because only a small fraction of sewage outflows are monitored. We are still massively behind England in that. The Government must get to grips with monitoring, publish every sewage dump, set legally binding targets for dumping and accelerate measures to upgrade Scotland’s Victorian sewerage system. It is time that the Government cleaned up its act.

Sixteen years of SNP government have left our public services near breaking point. We have heard a lot about that. Nowhere is it more true than in our national health service, which is engulfed in crisis. Just moments ago, we heard from a British Medical Association chief that Scotland no longer has enough doctors to effectively staff our NHS. It is a service that is on its knees.

When Humza Yousaf was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, he made a personal promise in the NHS recovery plan to clear mental health waiting lists—yet, we are nowhere. Figures that were released today reveal that more than 2,500 children and adults are waiting for more than a year for mental health support. We need counsellors in our schools and mental health first aiders in our workplaces. We need proper 24/7 support and a massive national recruitment programme to train more professionals in talking therapy.

The Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care must tear up his failed recovery plan and start again. This time, it must include an NHS staff assembly and a burnout prevention strategy. It must properly recognise dentists and incentivise them to take on NHS patients so that everybody can be seen.

It must also include provision for all those who are battling long Covid. I cannot believe that we have yet another programme for government in which, once again, they have been completely forgotten. Last September—almost exactly a year ago—a group of children whose lives have been devastated by the condition visited the Parliament, at great cost to their health, to meet the then health secretary, Humza Yousaf, to ask for his help. He promised them that he would do everything that he could do; however, a year on, as he sits at the head of the Government, the words “long Covid” have barely left his lips. He has done nothing and there is not one mention of those words across the 60 pages of policy documents that were presented alongside his statement this afternoon.

I, too, met those children on that day. I carry with me their suffering and their stories. The Government must, without delay, establish long Covid clinics and a proper treatment pathway while ensuring that clinicians are trained to diagnose and treat those who are affected by that terrible condition.

All that needs to be underpinned by a thriving economy. Low growth means less money for our public services. That has been borne out by the gross domestic product figures that were published last week, which make grim reading for Scotland.

In June, we heard the dreadful news that lifeline ferries had been hit by yet another six-month delay, which is further disrupting local economies, and with another £20 million in costs.

We know how important high-quality flexible childcare is to hard-working families and to our economy. The First Minister is right that we need to go further, but it is not clear whether the steps that he has outlined today will resolve the problems of those about whom I told him at the recent poverty summit—people who are unable to work due to inflexibility in childcare. In my constituency in the coming weeks I will chair a virtual town-hall meeting about the problem of scarcity of wraparound care. I am gratified to hear about recruitment of more childminders, but I fear that it will be a sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

This is a time of great change and great challenge. Across Scotland, old certainties are crumbling and new opportunities are emerging. Such times call for us to work hard and to work together in our communities with creativity and energy, and in a spirit of reform. Scottish Liberal Democrats are committed to playing our part in creating new hope and leading the way for change in Scotland. It is time for the Government to step up and play its part.

We move to the open debate.

15:34  

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the programme for government. The announcements in it that have been made by the First Minister, particularly those in relation to early learning and childcare, are especially welcome and significant, so I would like to address the importance of those proposals in the efforts of the Scottish Government to grow the Scottish economy.

The provisions build on the transformation that has taken place in early learning since this Government came to power in 2007. Back then, three and four-years-olds were entitled to 475 hours a year of early learning and childcare. The provision was increased to 600 hours in 2014, which was, itself, a significant transformation. After the reforms in 2021, the figure now stands at 1,140 hours for three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds. That is a seismic change in provision of early learning and childcare, and is one of the most significant public service reforms that have been undertaken by any Government in Scotland.

Is John Swinney concerned that families from the poorest backgrounds are struggling most to access their free early learning and childcare?

That should not be the case. I point out to Pam Duncan-Glancy that there is formidably more investment in, and provision of, early learning and childcare than there was when any Labour Government was in power in Scotland at any stage in the past.

That change is a shining example of a policy development that improves outcomes across a range of policy areas by creating the best start for children in Scotland, by boosting economic growth and by tackling poverty. First, it provides us with the opportunity to ensure that every child in our country is getting the best start in life through access to play-based activity, which develops essential skills; through access to nutritious food, which develops the foundations of healthy living; and through access to support to address, at the earliest possible stage, issues that a child faces in their development.

John Swinney mentioned food. It was promised that free school meals would be introduced by August 2022. The programme for government seems to suggest that it will be 2026 by the time they are introduced, and that, even then, they will be introduced only for a partial constituency. Can the member confirm that it will, in fact, be 2026 before we see the policy being realised?

I will maybe talk in a moment about some of the financial challenges that the Government faces as a consequence of the interventions of people such as Liam Kerr and their support for the actions of Liz Truss and her associates.

All the elements that I mentioned are critical to ensuring the best start in life for our children.

The second key policy benefit of ELC expansion has been the positive stimulus to economic growth and opportunity. The expansion itself has created new employment opportunities, but the provision has also enabled more parents to consider entering the labour market. At a time when we are still experiencing historically low levels of unemployment, which is welcome, and when the labour market is very tight due to the folly of Brexit, which is very unwelcome, it is vital that we take every measure to expand the labour market.

Thirdly, the expansion of early learning and childcare is part of a range of policy measures that are designed to combat child poverty, and which have been boosted in recent years by the introduction of the Scottish child payment. Unique in the United Kingdom and having been delivered during a cost of living crisis, the Scottish child payment is quite literally saving some of the most vulnerable citizens in our society today from destitution.

I support the Government’s efforts in expanding early learning and childcare and in ensuring that major policy development is having a multifaceted impact on a range of policy areas. I encourage the Government—I welcome what the First Minister had to say on this—to ensure that the measures that are taken forward maximise the flexibility that is available to families, and that they are delivered in a way that suits families, in order to help to stimulate greater economic participation and growth.

One of the best projects that I have seen that puts those aspirations into practice is the MsMissMrs project in Maryhill, which is in the constituency of my friend Bob Doris. There, that women’s empowerment organisation creates economic opportunity through childcare provision. That demonstrates how third sector partners can be involved to make that happen by listening carefully to the thoughts and input of those who are most affected by the reforms.

The proposals to expand early learning and childcare are taking place at a time of enormous financial strain on the public finances. Reforms of this type have to be paid for. It is worth noting that we are meeting today on the first anniversary of the election of Liz Truss as leader of the Conservative Party. I am reminded that the Conservatives here demanded that the Scottish Government follow the policy direction that was advocated by Liz Truss. They should look now at the damage that it has done. Look now at the perilous position of public finances. Look now at the very real hardship that is being faced by people who are wrestling with the massive impact on their lives of the increases in interest rates that have been foisted upon them by the Conservative Party and its folly. Look now at the damage that has been done.

In that context, the Scottish Government has taken tough decisions on tax by asking people who are on higher incomes to pay more in taxes in order to enable investment in our public services. It has taken measures including early learning and childcare expansion that boost economic growth. In answer to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question, I note that recent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the poorest 30 per cent of families in Scotland, are, on average, £2,000 better off each year as a result of this Government’s choices; however, almost unbelievably, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland now tells us that he does not support that progressive approach to taxation. What an absurdity with which to face the people of Scotland at this time.

There are tough choices to make in government. The fact that this Government has been prepared to make them has enabled the expansion of early learning and childcare, which will be good for our children and good for our economy. I encourage Parliament to give its enthusiastic support to the programme for government, which includes those essential provisions.

15:41  

Over the past few years, we have seen the former First Minister launch programmes for government that boasted of strength, resilience, fairness and green credentials, but we have rarely needed to look much further than the words in their titles to find the deficit between what was promised and what was delivered. The Scottish Government’s delivery deficit matters to people who live and work in my constituency in the Borders, and it matters to people in our small towns, villages and rural communities across Scotland. They have heard all this before. We could stand here and pick apart the frenzy of flimsy policies that have been announced in the programme for government today, but I would prefer to consider how the Government intends to back up the programme for government with a real plan to deliver on what it has promised.

I welcome the First Minister’s proposal to deliver more homes in rural areas. We need a solid plan to make rural Scotland a more attractive place for people to live and work, and I am sure that that is what the First Minister is getting at, although I cannot see him at the moment, so he will be missing my compliments. However, we need to know just how that plan will be delivered, and I am not convinced that what we have heard today leaves us any the wiser.

Farmers will be disappointed that they still have no idea when the new Scottish agriculture bill that will set out a framework to support our important farming industry will make its way through the Parliament. Given the length of time that farmers have had to wait without the ability to plan for the long term, we need to see the delivery of a practical piece of legislation. I say to the Government that it needs to get that on the table now, instead of keeping farmers in the dark through a pitiful lack of detail.

It is also good to hear the First Minister committing to taking action on addressing the crisis in primary care in rural areas, but those plans have been in the pipeline for years and no progress has been made. It is time to stop promising and start delivering.

In 2020, we were promised superfast broadband across rural Scotland through the reaching 100 per cent—R100—scheme. We are still waiting. Last year, the Government promised to improve the resilience of our ferry network, but now our island communities face more disruption than ever before and the SNP ferry fiasco continues to grow arms and legs. In one of the SNP’s first ever programmes for government, it was announced that the A9 would be fully dualled by 2025. We are nowhere near achieving that and people’s lives continue to be lost on that road.

The pattern of failure is not unique to rural Scotland, but it is symptomatic of the SNP-Green coalition, with its central belt agenda and central belt obsession, that so many of those failures have hit rural communities the hardest, and that is hard to take. The Government loves to talk about what it wants to do, but it rarely discusses how it intends to do it and when it does, it seems to lead to disaster. It rightly wants to look at providing protection for our marine environment, yet when it comes to making plans to do so, it completely fails to consider the impact that its plans would have on fishing communities.

The Government had the opportunity to gain cross-party support to improve recycling in Scotland, but instead it managed to ostracise almost all Scottish businesses. It has continually committed to restoring 250,000 hectares of peatland, but in every year since making that commitment, it has failed to get anywhere close to those figures.

A common theme in the Government’s failure to deliver on promises that were made in recent programmes for government is the involvement of the Green Party. Throughout its catalogue of catastrophes, it has proven itself wholly unfit to govern. Humza Yousaf has doubled down on his backing for the Bute house agreement and the Green Party’s reckless agenda, supporting plans to ban fishing in almost half of Scottish waters; rejecting calls from farmers to authorise the use of the chemical Asulox to control bracken; putting a block on vital road upgrades; and removing the close season for managing deer.

I understand that the Green Party’s continued presence in the Government provides the SNP with a helpful scapegoat when things go wrong, but I am afraid that, for people who live and work in rural Scotland, the dangerous influence of the Greens, coupled with the lack of interest in rural policies and priorities that the First Minister has shown, should not be tolerated any more.

We need a Government that delivers on its promises, but we also need a plan to be pragmatic, practical and sensible. We need action on Scotland’s real priorities. For rural Scotland, that means delivering a practical agriculture bill as soon as possible; upgrading our roads to save lives; saving our surgeries; fixing the ferry fiasco; and accelerating the R100 programme. None of that should come as a surprise—it has been promised before. It is now time for this Government to get on and deliver for the whole of Scotland.

15:46  

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I follow Rachael Hamilton, who said that the Government’s commitments were “flimsy”, but I see a lot of them as solid and exciting commitments. If Rachael Hamilton thinks that they are flimsy, I presume that she will not be opposing long-term rent controls, for example.

I welcome in particular the fact that childcare provision is to be expanded and that care workers are to be paid £12 an hour. Of course we all want to go higher on that, but it has to be affordable. I welcome the cladding remediation bill that is to come, and the First Minister’s comment that

“too much ... land is in the hands of too few.”

That is a long-term problem for Scotland, but we need to keep making progress there. I welcome the reopening of the independent living fund; rent controls, which have been mentioned; and the fact that we can, as a party and as a country, be both pro-growth and anti-poverty.

I hope that everyone had a good holiday during recess. I had 10 days in Ireland, camping—members will not be surprised to hear—at different locations. It is fascinating to be in another country, especially when they speak English and I understand it, and to listen to the radio programmes and read the newspapers. Of course, Ireland has some of the same problems that we have—for example, it cannot get enough workers to do certain jobs.

However, one of the challenges that Ireland has with its finances is slightly different from the challenges that we have. It has such a large budget surplus that the question is what to do with it. If the country spent it all in one go, in the short term that would probably fuel inflation, so people in Ireland are discussing whether they should pay off the national debt or perhaps start a sovereign wealth fund. What a good problem that is to have.

Some Opposition members say that we should forget about independence and concentrate on the cost of living, inflation and so on. However, independence is the answer to those day-to-day problems. If Ireland can be so successful, as a small independent country without a lot of the resources that we have, then Scotland absolutely can. Ireland’s situation is not exactly like ours, but it shows that freedom from London gives a country agility and the powers to respond much better to challenges as they come along.

One of the challenges with any programme for government these days is whether Westminster might randomly decide to veto something that it does not like. We saw that with the deposit return scheme—officials had been conducting apparently positive discussions on the scheme right into 2023 and then suddenly, out of the blue, Westminster pressed the veto button. That makes it difficult for any Scottish Government—or the Parliament—to plan ahead with certainty. I presume that any part of this year’s programme for government, including the budget, could be blocked by the London Government if it took a notion to do so.

Naturally, the programme for government includes the annual budget—that should be no surprise. The main uncertainty with the budget remains at a UK level in relation to when the UK Government’s autumn statement or budget might happen. Logically, the UK budget should come first, we would then build on that and then local government and other bodies would know the settlements in good time. However, in practice, we are left guessing to a large extent when the UK budget will be and what it will contain.

I am sure that there will be lots of time to discuss the Scottish budget as and when we get to it. However, I welcome the fact that committees are keeping the budget in their thinking all the way through the year. It is probably worth stressing once again that if Opposition parties would like more spending in one particular sector—as Rachael Hamilton has just called for in her speech—they have a responsibility to say where the money is to come from.

John Mason is completely missing the point. The delivery and outcomes are not as good in this country as they are in others. For example, the Scottish Government spends 50 per cent of gross domestic product on public spending but, compared with Germany, Denmark or Sweden, the outcomes in Scotland are completely different. Therefore, John Mason’s argument is entirely flawed.

We do not have time today to go into that in more detail. A lot of Scottish money has been very effective—the child payment is one example where there have been great results. I do not agree with Rachael Hamilton’s point. Basically, if you want to dual the A9 the whole way—something that we are all committed to doing—you have to know where the money is coming from.

When it comes to Scotland being competitive, we should remember that competitiveness does not simply equate to low taxes. Lots of businesses and individuals are looking for quality of life, including education facilities, the environment and other factors, as well as levels of taxation. Low taxes with poorer public services will not make Scotland attractive to very many people.

Speaking of businesses, we want Scotland to be an attractive place for businesses to start up and to grow. That is why I welcome in particular the message in today’s statement that we are both anti-poverty and pro-growth. The Scottish Government is keen to support businesses as much as it can.

However, businesses have responsibilities too. Businesses do not exist purely for the owners’ benefit; they are there for the good of society and the wider community. Businesses are more than welcome to make profits, but they must not make excessive profits, and if they do so, they should expect a reaction to that. In addition, businesses must pay the taxes that they are due to pay.

I do not argue that every SNP policy is perfect, but I would argue that they are a lot better than those that Labour has to offer. At least we are trying to reduce inequality with more progressive income tax, potential changes to council tax and the Scottish child payment. Meanwhile, Labour is planning to keep the two-child limit and the bedroom tax. I understand that it is also refusing to use capital gains tax or a wealth tax in order to target the excessively rich.

Personally, I am slightly disappointed that the Government is supporting safe access zones for abortion. Of course the health of women is important, but the health of unborn babies is important, too. More positively, I fully agree with the First Minister’s comments on toxic masculinity, positive masculinity and the need to tackle misogyny.

In conclusion, I think that we can be extremely positive about this programme for government, which the committees will be examining over the next 10 months. Scotland can be successful under the devolution set-up, but we can be more successful once we are independent.

15:53  

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I ceased to be the owner of a private rented property this summer.

This was not an energetic and fresh start from a First Minister delivering his first programme for government. This was the Government saying loud and clear that it has run out of steam, has run out of ideas and has given up—a delayed housing bill, a cladding bill that the deputy first minister wasted two years on and plans to tinker with the unfair and broken council tax. Where were the plans to empower communities? Where was the urgency to protect tenants and a commitment to get on with building the homes that Scotland needs by driving up supply in order to tackle Scotland’s housing crisis?

What we are left with is Scotland being let down by two failing Governments. The Governments in Westminster and Holyrood are bad for business, bad for jobs and bad for growth. They are delivering low growth, low productivity and high levels of poverty. While the SNP and Tories are distracted by their internal problems, they have lost touch with people’s reality—families are cutting back on basics, are unable to work because they cannot get the healthcare that they need and are struggling to pay spiralling bills, and people are losing their homes in record numbers.

Rent arrears are already up 75 per cent, with an eviction ban in place. Homelessness applications due to people defaulting on their mortgages are up 65 per cent. The number of children in temporary accommodation is up yet again—to record levels—and households with children are now waiting 502 days, on average, in temporary accommodation. That is a full-blown humanitarian disaster that has been created on this Government’s watch, but it still refuses to accept that the housing emergency is happening right now, right out there. Is it any wonder, then, that the Government’s research shows that only one in four people think that it is doing enough to help people? More than half think that it does not provide enough support.

The year-long mortgage bombshell is every bit of the Tories’ making, but people absolutely need help from this Government, too. The Citizens Advice report says that the number of people looking up advice on its site on facing eviction because their home has been repossessed has soared by a massive 462 per cent this year. Those are the real fears that families face.

A year ago, Labour offered the Government a plan for a mortgage rescue scheme, and still this Government has nothing to say to the 60,000 families who are at higher risk of repossession and the 7,000 who could already be in arrears. This Government is not interested in using the powers that the Scottish Parliament has to keep people in their homes. The First Minister said that he wanted today to be about reducing poverty and delivering growth—so do we, but the news from the housing regulator that affordable housing deliveries will fall by 15 per cent this year will do the very opposite.

Next week, I will meet Salmon Scotland, but not to talk about salmon; it will be to hear about how badly wrong the basics in the housing market are. The lack of affordable housing is stopping the Highlands and Islands from becoming a northern powerhouse, with workers able to live near their work and families, and it is causing island depopulation. If we ever needed an example of how bad for business, jobs, growth and the economy this Government is, it is the housing crisis that we are experiencing.

I agree with Mr Griffin that we should build as many affordable homes as we can. This Government has a proud record on that, even though our capital budget has been slashed by Westminster Governments. However, does Mr Griffin recognise the failure of the previous Labour Administration, which managed during its term in office to build only six council houses in total?

Mr Stewart was a housing minister, so he surely appreciates the fact that social housing comes not just from councils but from housing associations and that the previous Labour Administration built tens and tens of thousands of social houses. That intervention is absolutely symptomatic of the spin and hypocrisy that we get from this Government. Rather than focusing on delivery and addressing the problems that Scots face today, Mr Stewart harks back to false figures from more than a decade ago.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Griffin just said that I provided a false figure. I can guarantee for Mr Griffin that that figure of six council houses is absolutely right. All of them were built in Shetland, if he wants to know the facts. It is not a false figure at all.

Thank you, Mr Stewart. It is not a point of order, but you got your point on the record.

That is clearly a false representation of the situation and of the previous Labour Government, which delivered tens and tens of thousands of social houses.

The legacy of falling approvals will hit the economy and mean fewer houses for people who are desperate for them right now.

The Government’s latest idea—another woeful scrap of a policy offered to desperate councils that tinkers with the unfair, broken council tax—absolutely epitomises the Government’s dearth of ambition. During a cost of living crisis, it will simultaneously hammer 80,000 low-income households, penalise pensioners on fixed incomes and hit families, which face mortgages increasing by hundreds of pounds every month. It is a policy that is the result of the Government’s failure to abolish the council tax, made worse by its failure to properly fund vital public services. Those services are the engines that run our local communities. However, like council staff, they are at breaking point, which is hurting Scotland’s economy and making communities and the country poorer.

There was no personal commitment from the First Minister today that the savage decade of cuts that has cost local services over £6 billion since 2013-14 has come to an end.

Will the member give way?

Mr Griffin is winding up.

Closing libraries and swimming pools, ending essential music programmes, slashing care packages and seeing workers go out on strike is not why any councillor went into local government. Councillors want to improve the communities that we love, not manage decline and continually cut services while charging people more for what remains.

If the First Minister wants to work in partnership and co-operation with councils to protect what is left, grow our economy and tackle poverty, he should give a commitment that the funding cuts will stop.

16:01  

Environmental justice, social justice and economic justice are not separate concepts that require separate solutions. When the injustices can often be traced back to the same root causes, the solutions must be holistic. That is the theory that underpins green politics, the Bute house agreement and the programme for government.

Despite the challenges of inflation, Brexit and the UK Government’s unique combination of incompetence and outright malice, the programme for government confirms that we are building a fairer and greener economy for Scotland. Nowhere is that clearer than in the support that is given to the renewables industry.

When the Scottish Greens joined the Government, two years ago, one of the first tasks that we threw ourselves into was the reform of the national planning framework. One common point of feedback that we hear from businesses in the renewables sector, particularly in onshore wind, is that the glacial pace of the planning process has put them off developing new sites in Scotland. When NPF4 was published last year, it was described as

“a remarkable and major step forward”

by Scottish Renewables. Growth in renewables in Scotland is now happening at almost twice the rate in England. Our geography alone makes us a potential renewables powerhouse, but we cannot realise that potential without the support of national and local government. Reforming the planning process is one way in which the Scottish Government has done that. Today’s confirmation of a sectoral deal for onshore wind is another way—in particular, the further improvements proposed to the planning process to halve the average time before a decision is made on section 12 applications from two years to one year.

Without the major economic levers that are still reserved to Westminster, those are the practical steps that we can take to build a greener economy for Scotland. That is also how we can build a more resilient economy. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has given us a hint of the instability to come in the global energy markets as a result of the climate crisis. Electrifying critical sectors, such as transport and heating, and completely decarbonising our electricity supply will insulate Scotland from what will now inevitably be deeply unstable decades to come.

Wind turbines have become the symbol of Scottish renewables, but a broad mix of sources is clearly needed. That is why the Scottish Greens were keen to ensure that the programme for government included a commitment to develop a new vision for solar. Providing certainty to businesses in that sector as well as to other potential solar providers, such as local councils, will allow the sector to flourish or at least to undo the damage and job losses of the decade lost after David Cameron’s slashed support for solar back in 2012.

However, maximising the economic benefits of the transition to net zero goes beyond jobs only in generation. We all acknowledge that Scotland has not yet fully benefited from the manufacturing and wider supply chains required for the green energy revolution, so the confirmation of a new green industrial strategy is welcome. Large-scale, publicly owned energy infrastructure, in particular, is difficult to do without control over the energy market or substantial borrowing powers. However, we can use planning, licensing and other powers to maximise conditionality that ties the generating companies to maximise local supply chains and to secure a public stake in a stable and reliable long-term investment opportunity.

The fair work conditions that have been attached to public procurement contracts and grants as a result of the Scottish Greens’ co-operation agreement are already ensuring that the wages of some of the lowest-paid workers are boosted to at least the real living wage. That will be strengthened further by the sectoral fair work agreements that have been announced today.

The single most effective force for boosting workers’ wages is workers themselves, organised through their trade unions. Using sectoral fair work agreements to expand sectoral bargaining and boost trade union membership will create a fairer and more prosperous economy, as would giving workers direct control over their businesses by growing the number of co-operatives. The review of the support that is provided to co-ops and social enterprises gives another opportunity not only to empower workers but to make our economy more resilient through local ownership and reinvestment of profits in the real economy.

Workers will benefit from other Scottish Green policies, such as the removal of peak-time rail fares from next month and the pilot programme for the four-day working week. I can attest from the experience of our party and parliamentary group staff that the four-day working week can absolutely result not just in no loss of productivity but in productivity gains, because staff are happier and more motivated as a result of a better work-life balance.

Removing peak-time rail fares will not just help families through the cost of living crisis; it will have wider economic benefits, particularly in areas that are experiencing labour shortages because it is currently not worth the money, as a result of travel costs, for potential workers from slightly further away to fill gaps in the local workforce.

This morning, Anas Sarwar talked about green extremism—I presume that the line was drafted for him by his bosses in London. I will recap what that green extremism is delivering and contrast it with Labour’s offer.

In government with our SNP colleagues, we are lifting 90,000 children out of poverty through policies such as the Scottish child payment and mitigation of the Tories’ cruel benefit cap. On the other hand, Labour will not support removing that cap or even abolishing the two-child cap and the rape clause.

In recognition of the fact that 2,000 to 3,000 people who are disproportionately poorer and disabled die prematurely every year in Scotland because of air pollution, we are delivering low-emission zones in our city centres. As it is desperate for the support of Daily Mail columnists, Labour has abandoned its previous support for low-emission zones.

We are honest enough to say that lifting children out of poverty and tackling the climate crisis require those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more. On the other hand, Labour thinks that the tax rates that the UK Tory Government has set are fine and, according to its shadow chancellor, Labour cannot think of anything that it would spend increased tax revenues on, although more than 4 million children in the UK live in poverty.

If lifting children out of poverty, tackling the climate emergency and telling the wealthiest that they have to pay their fair share is extremism, the Scottish Greens are guilty as charged. We are proud to have played our part in a programme for government that will make Scotland a fairer and greener nation.

16:07  

Soaring inflation and the cost of living crisis, which are both fuelled by Westminster, continue to cut to the bone across too many of the communities that I represent. It is in that context—with rising food prices and eye-watering energy prices—that our Scottish Government must do what it has always had to do.

We will continue to respond to help the nation get through the Westminster-fuelled cost of living crisis as well as to build our own strong track record and vision. Scrapping the income threshold for best start foods is a sensible and welcome example of that—it will help a further 20,000 pregnant mums and children up to the age of three, on top of the 44,460 people who received the benefit last year. I know how the best start foods programme and its sister payment, the best start grant, have benefited my constituents, so the extension is warmly welcome, as is the on-going commitment to the Scottish child payment, which is delivered to 316,000 children in the poorest families across Scotland.

I see at first hand the substantial difference that the Scottish child payment makes. For many families, describing that as substantial does not cut it. I know from many private conversations that I have had with several families that the payment is a lifeline right now. It provides an additional £100 per child every four weeks, and such a payment does not exist anywhere else in the UK. In reality, it is a vital mitigation against a UK Government welfare system that penalises rather than supports children or families who are on the lowest incomes.

I do not understand why Labour would wed itself to that welfare system if it were ever in government at Westminster. Scotland’s child payment, which is worth £1,300 a year per child, improves the lives of hundreds of thousands of children and has prevented 90,000 children from falling into poverty.

Where Westminster policies are driving poverty, the Scottish Government is taking action to help families. Our approach to helping families is well illustrated today, with very welcome announcements on childcare. It is vital that we continue to roll out childcare provision. I note that 69 per cent of children in poverty live in working households. Extending provision to those households will not only tackle poverty but boost our economy. Therefore, it is very welcome to hear that six early adopter councils will extend free childcare for babies as young as nine months old up to school age. Clearly, I would wish Glasgow to benefit from that.

I welcome that the extension of the provision of childcare to two-year-olds, which offers parents flexibility in accessing childcare, will be accelerated. The programme seeks to boost the number of childminders by 1,000. They are facing a real challenge right now, so that will be welcome. It will also increase pay for staff in the private, voluntary and independent childcare sectors to at least £12 an hour. All that is welcome. However, I would like to hear more about expanding the affordable breakfast club programme and after-school provision for school-aged children. I pay tribute to the fantastic breakfast club at St Blane’s primary school, which my seven-year-old benefits from, and, the excellent after-school care provision that Summerston Childcare offers. However, such provision must be extended to as many people as possible.

The programme for government builds on our social care commitments. It is hugely positive to hear today that our social care staff will receive another well-deserved pay award. The announcement of a 10 per cent uplift to ensure that at least £12 an hour is paid to staff in direct care roles is worth £2,000 a year for full-time staff. That has been a while coming, but it is essential that we deliver on pay to that sector, and we must continue to do so.

I also welcome moves in the programme for government to protect further those struggling in their tenancies. I welcome the extension of the rent cap to the end of March 2024, plans to implement rent controls and plans to invest to reduce the reliance on temporary accommodation for those experiencing homelessness. We are well aware of those issues. I also welcome the headline commitment to deliver 110,000 affordable homes by 2032.

The programme builds on vital Scottish Government work. Let us not forget that that includes the on-going mitigation of the UK Government’s bedroom tax. The tax was brought in by Labour and rolled out by the Conservatives. The Scottish Government does all that it can to ensure that renters can afford to stay in their own homes, despite the bedroom tax. That mitigation costs us £84 million each and every year. Another £400 million is spent on the Scottish child payment mitigating a UK benefit system that does not adequately support our children.

In total, the Scottish Government spends £3 billion each year trying to limit the damage that Westminster causes, whichever party is in government. Just think what more we could do if we did not have to mitigate. Unfortunately, a whirlwind of UK Labour U-turns by Sir Keir Starmer means the need to mitigate Westminster decisions will continue to drain Scotland’s budget, irrespective of whether we have blue or red Tories at Downing Street. [Interruption.] Yes, I thought that Labour members would feel deeply uncomfortable about that. They should feel ashamed.

Despite the ever-increasing financial constraints that are placed on our Scottish Government as a consequence of mitigations, I am pleased to see in the programme for government several welcome progressive steps, which I am happy to commend to members.

Thank you, Mr Doris. I call Donald Cameron, to be followed by Sarah Boyack.

I ask that we have less chat across the front benches from sedentary positions, please.

16:13  

I, too, acknowledge that the First Minister has delivered his first programme for government and that, although the Scottish Conservatives will robustly scrutinise the legislative agenda for the year, we will provide constructive support where possible.

I welcome the pro-growth agenda that the First Minister says is a key focus of this programme for government, but it remains to be seen whether he will deliver on that, given the years of sluggish growth that Scotland has recently experienced. It will not be a surprise to him that the Conservatives strongly believe that there must be a renewed focus on economic growth, as Douglas Ross spoke about last week, instead of the damaging obsession with independence that this Government has previously shown.

More than £1.4 million has been spent on civil servant time on the production of the Scottish Government’s independence papers. However, as the First Minister put it during the SNP leadership contest, they are papers that sit

“on a website and nobody reads.”

Will Donald Cameron give way?

Not yet.

It is essential that the First Minister uses his first full year in charge to get Scotland’s economy moving forward again.

I will focus my remarks on the Government’s plans for Scotland’s cultural and heritage sectors, both of which have borne the brunt of the pandemic as well as deep cuts in recent years. It is disappointing that there is so little emphasis on them in the programme for government because, aside from announcements about a series of new strategies—well-intentioned, no doubt—there is little in the document that will give the culture and heritage sectors confidence that their cries for help have been heard.

I sense a real feeling of neglect about those sectors. That comes on a day that the Edinburgh International Festival lamented the Scottish Government’s approach to cultural spending and made the excoriating claim that

“the last time”

that the sector was

“able to be competitive and ambitious, rather than managing decline, was 2008”.

It is clear that warm words will not cut it. Research that was published earlier this year by the Scottish Parliament information centre highlighted the level of funding cuts across the culture sector over many years, including a real-terms cut to Creative Scotland’s budget since 2018-19 and real-terms cuts to Scotland’s national performing companies.

I understand the significance of the points that Mr Cameron makes. Indeed, in my short last tenure as finance secretary, I responded to a significant request from the King’s theatre in Edinburgh for Government funding to complete its restoration programme, which I am delighted that we were able to take forward. However, does Mr Cameron not understand the irony of the contrast between the remarks that he makes about the constraints on the public finances and the approach to public expenditure that the Government that he supports in the United Kingdom has taken for the past 13 years? I know that he looks at the issues carefully, but does he not identify the irony of asking us to spend more money when he supports a United Kingdom Government that puts in place a fiscal framework that constrains the Scottish Government’s expenditure?

Donald Cameron, I will give you back some time.

The short answer to Mr Swinney is that the block grant funding for the Scottish Government is the highest since devolution began, at around £41 billion for 2022 to 2025. That means that, for every £100 per person that the UK Government spends in England on matters devolved to Scotland, the Scottish Government receives around £126 per person. It is about choices.

As well as having a devastating impact on national organisations, the funding situation has a significant effect on the many grass-roots local arts and culture groups across Scotland that face an uncertain future.

The effect of all that was highlighted perfectly by Karen Anderson, who is chair of Workshop and Artists Studio Provision (Scotland) Ltd—a crucial organisation that provides studios throughout Scotland. She cited the Scottish Government’s performance indicators on arts and said that they showed a year-on-year decrease of the gross value added of £79 million in real terms between 2019 and 2020. She also said that employment numbers in Scotland’s arts, culture and creative industries were down by 10,000 on 2021. Undoubtedly the pandemic has something to do with that, but Karen Anderson summed it up by stating that Scotland faces a “cultural recession”. There was never a greater warning about the future of Scotland’s cultural sector than that. The First Minister must show leadership and face that challenge head on. Otherwise, the long-term impact will be irreversible.

It is not only the culture sector that faces an uncertain future: Scotland’s heritage sector continues to face challenges. Nowhere is that more the case than at our historical sites.

It is of course welcome that Historic Environment Scotland now receives more money than in previous years but that has not resulted in more of Scotland’s closed historical sites reopening to the public. The number of HES-managed sites that are completely closed or subject to restrictions has rocketed over the past year from 60 to 90. That means that almost one third of Scotland’s historical sites are impacted, which has a damaging effect on tourism, causes knock-on reverberations in local business and harms our international reputation as a prime tourist destination, discouraging visitors to rural Scotland in particular.

In conclusion, Scotland’s arts, culture and heritage sector faces a number of distinct and unique challenges that are born from years of underfunding. Although the programme for government acknowledges some of those issues, it does little to inspire confidence that the First Minister realises the problems to hand and that he has a plan to address them. Decisive action must be taken to ensure that Scotland remains a leading nation in arts, culture and heritage, and the Scottish Conservatives will play our part in making sure that that happens.

16:20  

The programme for government serves as a reminder of all the things that have not happened or that have got worse over the past 16 years. Before today, we were briefed that the programme for government would take action on climate change, so we responded positively to the story at the weekend that the First Minister was planning a round-table meeting with party leaders to work together to tackle the climate crisis. Today, however, the First Minister said that other parties are “abdicating their responsibilities” on climate change. That is a bit rich, given that, just prior to recess, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition informed Parliament that Scotland missed the 2021 greenhouse gas emission reduction target.

We urgently need the Scottish Government to make much more progress on delivery. Audit Scotland and the UK Climate Change Committee have highlighted the lack of progress on delivering on climate targets for homes and buildings, transport and land, so we need action.

I want to respond to the First Minister’s point. On oil and gas, the Scottish National Party has been all over the place. In January, the Scottish Government’s “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan” confirmed that the Government was

“consulting on whether ... there should be a presumption against new exploration for oil and gas.”

When Labour set out our ambitious proposals to sprint to clean energy and deliver the climate leadership that we urgently need with our green prosperity plan, the Minister for Energy and the Environment accused us of turnin aff the taps. In the wake of the UK Government announcement at the end of July on oil and gas licences, the First Minister said that the UK Government was not taking climate change seriously. He said:

“The Scottish Government continues to believe in an accelerated Just Transition. Our future is not in unlimited extraction of oil & gas.”

This week, the energy minister called for a “nuanced approach” on oil and gas licences. That is all over the place, but it is just one example of the lack of bold climate leadership and, critically, the lack of the delivery that we urgently need from the Government.

If we add in the cost of living crisis—

Will the member take an intervention?

No, but that was well timed, minister.

If we add in the cost of living crisis and last year’s shocking £133 million underspend on retrofitting, it is absolutely clear that the Scottish Government has lost all credibility when it comes to being a leader in tackling climate change, particularly during that crisis. Although the First Minister talked in his statement about tackling poverty, the Government is not doing the heavy lifting to ensure that, across the country, we have investment to deliver the affordable warm homes that people urgently need. The Scottish Government estimates that, this year, nearly 1 million households—technically, 980,000 households—which is 39 per cent of Scotland’s households, will be in fuel poverty.

We urgently need action, but today we heard about nothing that will begin to tackle the challenge. It does not need to be like this.

It is clear that the Government is already doing far more than Governments in other parts of the UK on the financial support that people need to retrofit their homes. Will the member commit her party to supporting us and working with us on a heat in buildings bill, or does she share her party leader’s attachment to the rhetoric on green extremism?

The whole point is that the approach needs to be practical and it needs to tackle the cost of living crisis. The problem that we have is that the two Governments are not talking to each other and are falling out when it suits them, but they are not delivering the policy.

A comment was made earlier about community energy. I strongly support that approach, but local government has been absolutely cash-strapped for 16 years, and it is critical in delivering the projects that Patrick Harvie is talking about. If we want to see community heat and power networks and to deliver co-operative opportunities in Scotland, we need to work with our councils, and they need to have in place the planners and the people to do risk assessments.

Crucially, we need to join up the work, which is not happening. It is practical, and we know that it works when it happens in other countries, but it is not happening here. As Anas Sarwar said, we urgently need to change what is happening. Businesses in particular urgently need action, because they are committed to investing in innovative low-carbon technologies but are not getting the support from the Scottish Government or the UK Government. Although I very much welcome the announcement of a green industrial strategy, businesses have been waiting for far too long. We need to see plans for the infrastructure that urgently needs to be built, and we need the Government to use its powers in relation to green manufacturing, support for supply chains, and training and upskilling for those who have vital experience.

As Anas Sarwar said, Labour offers a credible alternative. We led the way when we were in power. With our green prosperity plan, we would cut energy bills by up to £1,400 a year. There would be joined-up thinking and bold and radical action. The plan would also save businesses across the UK £53 billion in their energy bills up to 2030. In Scotland, we urgently need more jobs in clean power. Our plans would create 50,000 jobs, and there would be a further 17,000 jobs for plumbers, installers and construction workers to upgrade our homes and buildings.

To implement Patrick Harvie’s aspirations, we need to do the heavy lifting. We need to be bold and radical, and our workers and communities need to benefit from a just transition through locally owned heat and power networks. The SNP has given up on the public sector, but we would establish GB Energy—a publicly owned energy company that would generate energy, work to unlock our green energy potential, create jobs across Scotland and the UK and get critical supply chains in place. We urgently need joined-up thinking in order to tackle our climate crisis and transform people’s lives.

I am interested in hearing from the Deputy First Minister. I have been consulting on my proposed member’s bill on wellbeing and sustainable development. We know from Wales that its Future Generations Commissioner has made a huge difference, so I hope that the Scottish Government will support my bill.

Extreme weather is becoming more frequent, and there are disastrous health and economic impacts across the world, so we need to tackle climate change. We need action now, not just warm words.

16:27  

As others were in their constituencies, I was out and about in my Edinburgh Northern and Leith constituency over the summer months. There is a lot to be optimistic about, but there is also a lot to worry about.

As others have articulated, the challenges for households are real and significant. There is deep inequality in our country, particularly when it comes to income. It is worth reminding ourselves that, in the UK, which is one of the richest countries in the world, about 40 per cent of total disposable household income goes to the fifth of individuals with the highest incomes, while less than 10 per cent goes to the fifth with the lowest incomes. That is where we are, so it is no wonder that, in such a scenario, there is anger and anxiety. Our collective challenge is to make sure that that does not turn to apathy and that hardship does not turn to hopelessness.

The UK is a poor society with some very rich people. During these challenging times in this country, our constituents are looking to us all for support, security and positive direction—a Government that is on their side. Many of the challenging circumstances that we face with our public finances have been created by Westminster Governments and through policy decisions outwith our control, so, given all those challenges, the leadership that the First Minister has shown today is admirable. He has set out what I believe is a progressive and appropriate programme for government in these times.

I could touch on so many things that will make a difference in my constituency and elsewhere, but I will focus on just a few. First, there is the commitment to increases in public sector pay. Today, we have heard that there will be at least a 10 per cent increase in pay for our important social care workers. Increases in public sector pay not only make sure that services are sustained and kept running during these challenging times, which is not happening elsewhere; they also have a positive multiplier effect on reducing income inequality and providing stimulus in our economy.

I congratulate the Government on its social security commitments, of which there are several. As the Minister for Social Security and Local Government, I was proud to work on the removal of the income threshold for the best start foods payment, and I am glad that that has progressed.

I was also proud to work on the delivery of the Scottish child payment, and I am pleased to see another £400 million-plus investment in that. Let us all remember, as Professor Danny Dorling reminded audiences in Edinburgh in the summer months, that the Scottish child payment is not only the most innovative and important anti-poverty measure in the whole of the UK but a measure that is mitigating an underfunded universal credit system. It is required because the welfare state at UK level is not adequate. The point that I put to those who seek to be in government at UK level next year is that, if they are not prepared to do more with the social security system, they should devolve more of it and let us get on with it. The same goes for taxation: if they are not prepared to do things with capital gains tax for a society as unequal as ours, they should give this Parliament the powers and we will use them for the common good.

That brings me to the measures that will be taken to expand childcare provision and support small businesses. Most of the problems in my constituency—this will be the same for many members in the chamber—relate to in-work poverty. Think about the difference that we could make if we had powers in this Parliament over employment law. Again, if those who seek to be in government in Westminster are not prepared to use those powers, they should devolve them and we will make a bigger difference with them here.

The last important area of challenge that I will touch on is housing. Colleagues will know that I am the representative of Edinburgh Northern and Leith in our capital. The pressures on our housing system in Edinburgh are really significant. Shelter has called it an emergency, and I would certainly call it a crisis. The actions that will be in the housing bill to moderate rents are welcome. Actions include duties to prevent homelessness, which is particularly welcome because there has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of homelessness applications.

I note that the Government has said that, in the year ahead, it will invest £750 million through the affordable housing supply programme. As important as it is to invest in other places—and I note the points about rural areas—I ask that any projects in Edinburgh that can be prioritised are prioritised, and, if there is any additional initiative that can be undertaken with the City of Edinburgh Council, let us look at it collaboratively, because we really need to take action on the serious situation that we face in the capital.

We are in a new parliamentary term. As each of us walked through the doors to the chamber, I hope that we felt our privilege again. It is an honour to be here; it is a serious place, and, as one of the Opposition members said, we must rise to the big challenges.

The Scottish Government has set out its prospectus. It is robust and realistic, but it is also ambitious. People out there want us to be constructive. They know how serious these times are. Let us therefore scrutinise but not sensationalise, as has been done this afternoon. Let us exchange ideas but not exaggerate conflict when it is not there. There is so much work to be done, so let us get on with it for the common good and the benefit of all our constituents.

16:33  

It is a pleasure to close for Labour in what has been—typically and rightly—a robust debate, because it is a difficult time for so many of the people who we are elected to represent.

In speaking to the good people of Dundee and those in the north-east more broadly, and when knocking doors in Rutherglen and Hamilton West in these past few weeks, I have found that people do not wait for 22 minutes to mention our NHS crisis. The first things that people mention on doorsteps across Scotland are the NHS crisis and the cost of living crisis. Wives, daughters, husbands and sons are adrift on waiting lists. Cancer diagnoses are delayed; lives are lost or changed for ever. Waiting lists are soaring to unheard-of heights. Access to GPs is collapsing. NHS dentistry is little more than a myth to more and more people.

There is no real recovery, no real plan and no real hope. That is what a real leader would have offered today. When nothing works as it should, people are desperate for hope and change.

Increasingly often, the pay packet is gone long before the end of the week. Bills continue to rise and everyone, everywhere is paying the price of Tory economic incompetence. Anyone who watched Jeremy Hunt’s recent appearance on the Laura Kuenssberg show saw him say that cutting inflation from 10 per cent to 5 per cent would put 5p in every pound back in people’s pockets. Really? The real life Chancellor of the Exchequer is utterly clueless about what inflation actually is, let alone how to deal with it. The sooner we can have a general election and get that shower out of power, the better.

After 16 years in government, the First Minister is now attempting to feign an interest in the economy. The fact that his predecessor showed no interest whatsoever means that he inherits a toxic legacy. Back in the spring, before we all went off on recess, the wellbeing economy was the answer, but there was not a single mention of that in the First Minister’s speech. He is interested in economic growth in the same way that I am interested in Dundee United winning the champions league: it would be a good thing, but I do not have the faintest idea how it could ever happen.

The First Minister said that he was “unashamedly” pro growth, but there was absolutely nothing in his speech about how that would ever happen. There was no plan whatsoever and nothing at all to say what he would do to make that growth appear. Wishing will not make it true: we need a plan that is based on substance.

I wonder whether Mr Marra missed the part of the First Minister’s speech in which he announced the new sectoral deal for wind and the planning reforms that will take us from having a rate of growth in renewables that is twice that in England to one that is far beyond that. Did Mr Marra miss the bit where the First Minister outlined specific plans to grow our renewables industry?

Those plans will be turbocharged when we have a publicly owned energy company for the UK that is based in Scotland and can deliver real jobs. That was promised by this Government years ago, but nothing happened to deliver it.

There was a fleeting mention in the First Minister’s speech of Scotland’s outstanding universities and their role in the economy, but the SNP-Green approach to leadership in those universities has been described by the sector as one of managing decline. There was a single mention of our colleges at a time when further education staff are facing compulsory redundancies and Audit Scotland is damning about this Government’s failure to provide any leadership on skills.

Alex Cole-Hamilton rightly raised the issue of the crumbling concrete in our schools, which is worrying parents across Scotland. We heard the cabinet secretary attempting earlier to disassociate that problem from the long-delayed school upgrade programme, which was a not-at-all credible answer to a serious question.

I am grateful to Michael Marra for recognising my remarks in his speech. Does he agree that the problematic concrete is not limited to our school estate but is also being found in our hospitals, creating the far more serious problem of what to do with patients who may be on wards where there is problem concrete?

That is a fair point and well made. These problems extend across Scotland’s public estate and we recognise that it will be a significant financial challenge for the Scottish Government to intervene. We need full disclosure, and as soon as possible, of where that material has been used and the challenges that it causes.

Will the member accept an intervention?

No, thank you.

Refusing to answer questions about the issue, as Dundee City Council has done in my area, is untenable. There are serious questions that need answers from the Government and from our local authorities.

John Swinney raised the issue of the SNP Government’s investment in childcare. Just yesterday, Paul O’Kane MSP led a Labour round-table meeting of anti-poverty organisations that stressed the lack of access for poorer families and the need to increase action in that regard. I say to Mr Swinney that, from my reading of the programme for government, there are some signs of amendments to the programme that might begin to deal with some of those problems with access. I hope that he recognises that the challenge is recognised by anti-poverty organisations and that we need to see change to make sure that that happens. We need to get that right, and flexibility is key. The ability of a parent to take an extra shift in a supermarket or any place of work is critical if we are going to deal with issues of poverty.

Will Mr Marra take an intervention?

No, thank you, sir. I am running out of time.

There has also been coverage of justice issues. The First Minister wants to trial body-worn cameras at a time when, in the north-east of Scotland, we are trialling not investigating crimes at all.

The key is that, when in power, you have to act, but we all know the political test that was set for the First Minister by his own admission today: it was necessary to take the chance to define his leadership as something other than chaos and incompetence. What would be new? What would show that the Government had risen to the moment?

Is the problem with today’s relaunch not, perhaps, that the problems that it seeks to fix bear the clown’s footprints of the First Minister’s ministerial path to date? When it comes to the broken transport system, the broken justice system and the broken NHS, the truth is that the guy who broke it cannot fix it. He may have received the dreaded vote of confidence from his back benchers today, but they all know that, in reality, the writing is on the wall. How many more bad results can he withstand? Today’s performance has done nothing to change the mood. Far more important, it does nowhere near enough to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, who are crying out for change.

16:41  

It is our privilege to live in Scotland—a country that is rich in its natural resources, its landscapes and the talent of its people. We are currently world leading in some aspects of research and economic development, but we all know only too well that Scotland is nowhere near turning her full potential into a reality—such is the extent of the economic challenges that face us.

Just a cursory look at the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s most recent statistics and the analyses of numerous independent economic groups tells us the very gloomy prognosis, which is that Scotland is facing long-term fiscal instability, with persistent large black holes in the public finances. We have a serious demographic imbalance that means that our working population as a percentage of the total population is declining faster than is the case in other economies. Our productivity and growth are both weak, and we have nothing like the money that is required to pay for the spending projected for the foreseeable future. The relevant statistics in that regard are set out at almost every evidence session of Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee—today’s meeting included—to the extent that the status quo is simply not an option.

What is required is not just a change to the policy focus, but a radical change to the structure of the economy and its accompanying structures of Government expenditure and taxation. To pretend otherwise is irresponsible, but it is also deeply damaging to our country.

The First Minister said that there is a relentless focus on growth. I say to him that he needs to sit down with his coalition partners and tell them that because, for them, economic growth does not seem to matter. If he does not have economic growth, he will not be able to do all the things that are being suggested for the wellbeing of the economy.

Last week, Douglas Ross set out our prospectus for growth, with measures that we believe can bring about the right environment in which business and industry can flourish. They are measures that business and industry have said they want to be put in place in order to develop an interconnected and coherent infrastructure, and an environment in which we can make the very best use of people’s talents and skills—more of which in just a minute.

However, the public and businesses are also telling us that they want a tax structure that is aligned with that of the rest of the UK so that Scotland does not lose her competitive advantage, and that they want a tax system that is designed to retain and attract skilled working people, improve productivity and maximise the potential for growth. What they do not want is a Scottish Government that is hell bent on making sure that Scotland is the highest-taxed part of the UK, whether that is done by increasing income tax on middle and higher earners or threatening large hikes in council tax.

Will the member give way?

I will give way in just a minute.

It is interesting that the Labour Party has now changed its tune on that. It is because, I presume, it has finally recognised that, if we do not get economic growth and better public services, higher taxes will not work.

Does Liz Smith accept that not just lower taxes but the quality of education, the environment, the world-class universities and many other factors attract people and businesses to Scotland?

John Mason is right: it is not just about tax. However, I am sure that he has spoken to businesses in his Glasgow constituency. All of them tell us that a big part of the fact that Scotland is no longer as competitive as it should be is that it is the highest-taxed part of the UK. That is serious.

We also desperately need a tax structure that delivers much better public services. When people pay more, they do not want to get less. In effect, that is what is happening. We need a tax structure that delivers much greater transparency. That very strong message has come from Audit Scotland over many years.

That brings me to our demographic imbalance and the resulting effects on productivity and tax revenues. No country in the world is immune to those demographic pressures, but Scotland’s circumstances are worse because the size of the working population in relation to the total population is declining at a faster rate. The Scottish Fiscal Commission tells us that, over the next 50 years, Scotland’s population could fall by around 400,000 as a result of the lower birth rate.

Will Liz Smith give way?

I will not just now, if Kevin Stewart does not mind.

In addition, the percentage of people over the age of 65 will increase from 21 per cent, where it is now, to 31 per cent in 2072.

As Professor James Mitchell has said, we have higher levels of taxation but less money to spend on public services because the performance of the Scottish economy is weaker than that of economies elsewhere.

To make matters worse, a higher percentage of people are remote from the workforce, and large numbers of people have taken themselves out of the workforce since Covid. Those people have skills that we highly value and desperately need. That is another reason to focus on policies that will encourage people back to the labour market. I welcome the childcare policy.

Will Liz Smith take an intervention?

I will not, if Ross Greer does not mind, because I have a lot to conclude on.

For example, how ridiculous is it that the current funding position in higher education is skewed against that idea? For example, Scotland-domiciled people desperately want to take up university places to study medicine, but they cannot get in because of the intense competition from foreign students who pay extra fees, which makes them a more attractive financial proposition for our struggling—

That is rubbish.

No, it is not rubbish. It is absolutely true. If we listen to Universities Scotland and many of the people who work in universities, we will hear that it is absolutely true. The trouble is that, particularly in relation to medicine, people go elsewhere and never come back to Scotland. We need those people and their skills, because they are highly valued.

I am attracted by what people such as James Withers and Sandy Begbie have said—most especially, about the need for a much more holistic approach to skills and training that is bought into by schools, colleges, universities and businesses, and for a system that values skills across the diversity of the population and which values every institution—wherever and whatever it might be—that delivers that training.

Another aspect of the Withers report is the reflection on the need for a change in the culture that is to deliver public sector reform, which is something that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has been concentrating on for a considerable number of weeks. He is clear that the problem is not the complexity of the change but the lack of clarity and direction regarding Government policy. As a result, too many public sector bodies are working in silos without giving due regard to the bigger picture.

It is my firm belief that establishing a sustainable financial position for Scotland absolutely has to be the top priority—exactly as it is for the Finance and Public Administration Committee of the Parliament. I repeat that the current position is simply not an option, because it fails to deliver when it comes to making best use of our precious resources. It fails to deliver better productivity, the right environment for growth, higher tax revenues or best use of our best resource—our people.

To continue with the current structures in the economy is to fail to address the very serious concerns that have been set out by the Parliament. We desperately need a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in business and industry, but we also desperately need that in the Government.

I call the Deputy First Minister, Shona Robison, to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.

16:50  

This year’s programme for government shows how the Scottish Government will continue to support people and communities across Scotland to thrive and live more positive lives in a fairer, more equal society.

The current financial situation is challenging. It is challenging for households, business and, as many have said, the wider public finances. I know that this is a worrying time for many. Within that context, the Government has published an ambitious anti-poverty, pro-growth programme for government that will support Scotland’s progress towards the fairer, wealthier and greener Scotland that we want to see.

As the First Minister stated earlier, this Government will always support the people of Scotland to succeed, particularly when times are difficult. This programme for government demonstrates our commitment to prioritising the provision of support to those who need it most, and we will use every power at our disposal to protect the vulnerable in our society and to build strong, cohesive and vibrant communities.

I want to turn to some of the points that members have made. I will touch only briefly on Douglas Ross’s points, because there was nothing much new in what he was saying. He talked down our education system, despite the record numbers of young people entering our higher education system, particularly from poorer backgrounds. He also complained about the lack of affordable homes, despite opposing every measure to stem the loss of affordable homes, such as the action taken on short-term lets and second homes. Then he talked about his bold economic plan, which really equals tax cuts.

John Swinney was absolutely right to point out that, on the anniversary of Liz Truss being elected into Government, which was followed by her disastrous mini-budget, those lessons of Trussonomics have not been learned and what we are seeing is Rossonomics, with the bells and whistles of a tax-cutting agenda that will cut public finances. With the Truss Government, we saw not just the impact on the public finances that we are still feeling now, but the impact on households’ finances. The idea that Douglas Ross can put forward that proposition in the light of all that evidence seems to me to be quite astonishing.

If the cabinet secretary would go back to what I was discussing in my speech, she would see that I made a very direct plea to the First Minister to answer a point in the programme for government. He has promised that his Government, of which the cabinet secretary is the Deputy First Minister, will dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness. When will that happen?

The First Minister confirmed today that we have launched the procurement for the Tomatin to Moy section as the next step in that work. One would have thought that that was something that Douglas Ross would have welcomed. We will make further announcements about the rest of the A9 dualling in due course.

I want to turn to Anas Sarwar.

Before the Deputy First Minister turns to Anas Sarwar, I would like to point out that Douglas Ross pleaded for us all to support his right to recovery bill—a bill that has still not been published. That seems to not really be a priority for the Conservatives, because their website clearly shows that the right to recovery section has not been updated since 1 September 2021. Will the DFM comment on that?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is important that the chamber has all the facts. I have been going through the non-Government bills unit, and I am very grateful that it has now appointed Brodies as the drafters. I can only go as quick as that process. What would speed it up would be for the Scottish Government to say that it will back the bill 100 per cent.

That was not a point of order, of course, but the member has made his point.

In the spirit of trying to be helpful, as a number of ministers and the First Minister himself have said to Douglas Ross, we want to work with members from across the chamber to tackle a serious issue, but we need to see the bill. When we see the bill, we will address the issue of whether there are elements in it that we can take forward. I will leave that there.

I turn to Anas Sarwar. I might be a bit old-fashioned, but I think that we should wait to see the results of by-elections before declaring victory in them. It does a great disservice to the people of Rutherglen to do otherwise.

Anas Sarwar said that the Government focuses too much on social policy. We make no apology for focusing on social policy that has lifted 90,000 children out of poverty. We heard a number of speeches from Labour members about how we need to do more and go faster, but Anas Sarwar wants to keep the bedroom tax and the two-child limit, and he wants to make the rape clause fairer. He wants to turn his back on progressive taxation and back off from environmental policies. How does any of that help to address either poverty or the environmental crisis that is facing the planet? The truth is that Labour has no answers to anything, other than a desperate hope that the Tories’ incompetence at Westminster will let it into office without it making any promises or holding out any prospect of real change. That is the truth, and Anas Sarwar will say and do anything to try to open that door. That is not about principle—it is about ditching principles to try to win an election, so let us just call it what it is.

However, we will not have Labour members coming here as part of the budget process and turning their backs on wanting to raise any revenue while making myriad calls for spending priorities such as those that we have heard today, because you cannot have spending priorities and want to spend more money without having the money to allocate to those spending priorities. We will not hear any of that from Labour.

Alex Cole-Hamilton talked about the important issue of RAAC. In her answer to today’s topical question, Shirley-Anne Somerville made clear the action that is being taken on RAAC and the seriousness with which we take the issue, which we have been working on for many months. If Alex Cole-Hamilton wants to meet to get a more detailed briefing on what is being done behind the scenes and the information that is being gathered from stakeholders, particularly local government, I am sure that Shirley-Anne Somerville will do that.

I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for taking my intervention and I would certainly welcome a meeting with the cabinet secretary. However, if the Government has been working on the problem concrete for so many months, I am anxious that the first time it was raised in the Parliament, it was raised by an Opposition leader. Why has the Parliament not been informed of the threat to public safety?

We have been following the guidance of the Institution of Structural Engineers, doing the risk assessments and working with partners. There is nothing to hide here. We are all trying to work together through a very difficult challenge. Of course we will keep the Parliament updated as we gather information. We should be trying to reassure people, and I am sure that Alex Cole-Hamilton will want to join us in doing that.

John Swinney was right to talk about the key issue of childcare and its important role in boosting economic growth. It is a single intervention that can tackle poverty and help parents to get back into work and to secure more hours and more secure employment. It is absolutely vital, and it is at the heart of this programme for government. It builds on the work that we have done to support the 30 per cent of the poorest families, who are better off by £2,000 a year because of the choices of this Government.

Therefore, to those who say that there is nothing in the programme for government to tackle poverty, I say that the facts do not support that proposition. We have shown by our actions where our priorities lie. Yes, it is about social policy and addressing social inequality, but it is also about economic growth. On that point, Rachael Hamilton talked about R100, which is a really important part of our investment in our infrastructure. Despite telecoms legislation being wholly reserved, we are investing £600 million in R100 to make that change happen.

Affordable housing is critical, not just in tackling poverty but for boosting economic growth. We will invest £750 million to support the delivery of affordable homes. We have already delivered 110,000 affordable homes, and we will deliver another 110,000 by 2032, so we have a good record on affordable housing to report on. We will also invest £60 million of that to acquire empty properties to use as affordable homes.

Ross Greer was absolutely right about fair work principles attached to grants and contracts. The sectoral fair work agreements that were announced in today’s programme for government build on that, which is hugely important.

I end on a point that Liz Smith made. She made a number of important points, as she often does—she is one of the more constructive Conservative members. I know that it is quite a low bar, but she definitely is. She talked about the challenge in the public finances. She is absolutely right, and we will of course continue to set out how we will meet that challenge—not helped, incidentally, by the real-terms cut in both resource and capital budgets that is coming next year.

With regard to the medium-term financial strategy, we absolutely need to take action. Part of that is about reform, and part of it is about modelling the needs of the public sector over the next 10 years to ensure that it delivers in a way that is efficient and that meets the people’s priorities. We will do that, and if we can get support from members across the chamber to do so, we will.

On tax, I am chairing the tax strategy group, working with experts to ensure that we land in the space of having a tax system that—

Deputy First Minister, I need you to conclude.

—is progressive and fair.

I end on this note of consensus. I am keen to work with any member across the chamber. In tough times, we do not have all the answers, and we want to work across the chamber. Where there are good ideas and suggestions, we will listen to them, but what we will not do is have Scotland, and our public services, talked down. We will continue to invest record levels of investment in our public services, because the people of Scotland deserve and expect nothing less than that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During the debate earlier this afternoon, Mr Ross stated that he had mentioned Mr Matheson

“because he has refused to meet with ... campaigners”

on the issue of GPs

“in my local area”

and said that he had to write to him “several times” on the matter.

As Mr Ross says, it is important that the chamber has all the facts on these matters. I was due to meet with the campaign group to which Mr Ross referred at 2.30 this afternoon. In fact, Mr Ross was actually invited to attend that meeting, but unfortunately, because of parliamentary business for which we both had to be in the chamber, the meeting had to be cancelled last week.

As a result, my office actually extended two further dates over the next two weeks to meet with that campaign group and for Mr Ross to be able to attend that meeting. It is very clear that the comment made by Mr Ross that I had refused to meet with the campaign group is inaccurate and is misleading the chamber.

Given the need to ensure that comments that are made by members in the chamber are accurate, can you advise me how Mr Ross can go about setting the record straight and removing the inaccurate accusation that he has made in his comments? [Interruption.]

I will deal with one point of order before I get on to any others.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his contribution. That is not a point of order, but the cabinet secretary has nonetheless made his point on the record. The mechanism for correcting the Official Report is known to all members, so I do not need to repeat it.

Douglas Ross rose—

Douglas Ross has a point of order.

Further to that point of order, I want to go through a couple of points. First, the meeting was cancelled and the alternative dates were not suitable for another Scottish Government minister, so we are now looking at October—[Interruption.]

Members! We need to hear the member who has the floor.

Secondly, the health secretary is on record in the Official Report refusing to meet the group. When I asked him during health questions, he said that it would not be appropriate.

Finally, I raised the matter today—I know that SNP members will want to hear this—because, yesterday, the save our surgeries Burghead and Hopeman campaign Facebook page said this:

“We are very disappointed that our planned meeting with Cab Sec for Health ... Michael Matheson had to be cancelled due to his other commitment.

Our community has been left without proper services for long enough and we need action now!”

It finished:

“Impatiently awaiting new date”.

We are all impatiently awaiting that new date. The health secretary should respond immediately—[Interruption.]

Members!

I will deal with that point of order before I take any other point of order. As Mr Ross knows, that was also not a point of order, although his comments are now on the record. I imagine that Mr Ross is well aware that there are various routes by which he can pursue the matter.

If another point of order were to be in the same vein, I would not wish to take it.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the vein of requiring accuracy from members who speak in the chamber, I note that Rachael Hamilton erroneously stated that the Scottish Government had plans to ban fishing in half of Scotland’s waters. I ask that Rachael Hamilton consider her responsibility to correct the Official Report on that point.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer!

I will first respond to the cabinet secretary.

As the cabinet secretary is well aware, that was not a point of order. We are using up members’ time. Members should know what is and what is not a point of order. The ways in which the Official Report can be corrected are well known to all members.

If Ms Hamilton wants to make a point of order in the same vein, I remind her that it will not be a point of order. There is a way in which to correct the record and we are using up members’ time. Rachael Hamilton, do you want to make a point of order?

Yes, thank you, Presiding Officer. It is saddening to know that a cabinet secretary with such responsibility does not listen in debates. My words were:

“the Green Party’s reckless agenda”,

supporting a fishing ban in half of Scottish seas. I would like the record to be corrected in respect of that erroneous point of order.

That is not a point of order—as has been the case for all the other contributions. The ways in which the Official Report can be corrected are well known to all members.

As I was going to say, that concludes the debate on the programme for government 2023-24. I would now like to move on to the next item of business.