The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09926, in the name of Patrick Harvie.
16:16
Green politics begins with a recognition that the ecological and social crises that we face both stem from the same broken economic system, so the Green Party’s choice of topics for debate seek to reflect that balance.
We propose a motion on wealth and pay inequality at a time of increasing global debate about the subject. Over recent years, those debates have been informed by “The Spirit Level”, which was written by Wilkinson and Pickett; by the work of the First Minister’s favourite Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz; and by the more recent work of Thomas Piketty.
In Scotland, the work of organisations such as Oxfam, the Carnegie UK Trust, the Jimmy Reid Foundation and the Scottish Trades Union Congress has also helped to develop the idea of an economy in which not just how much economic growth is generated but how fairly that is shared is measured. Just this week, we have seen work from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, as well as research published by the Sunday Herald at the weekend, that further the debate in the Scottish context.
It is going to be difficult to have the debate without the referendum context creeping in. Members on both sides of the referendum debate will have their own views: some will say that the Scottish Government can and must do more now, whereas others will say that we need the full powers of independence. The motion deliberately does not seek to get into that. Members on all sides know the Green position and why I will be voting yes, but in this debate our purpose is to seek agreement on the objective goal of reducing inequality in wealth and income so that, no matter which decision the Scottish people make, none of us can walk away from that agreement.
Neither the Labour amendment nor the Scottish National Party amendment seeks to remove most of the commitments in the motion on progressive and redistributive taxation, on decent wages instead of subsidised poverty pay and on the need to address high pay as well as low pay. I am glad that neither of the two large parties is seeking to remove those commitments.
The debate on inequality very often focuses on safety-net policies, such as benefits and the minimum and living wages. Let us recognise that safety nets can all too easily develop holes. The creation of a legal minimum wage was a really important step; the advancement of a living wage is a better one. However, employers will find ways to exploit people by using tactics such as zero-hours contracts or the outsourcing of low-wage work to other companies to allow them to claim the public credit for paying the living wage to their direct employees while exploiting the labour of people in poverty. Even this Parliament has been in that position, despite the political will of the majority of its members.
The welfare system is supposed to be another safety net, but it is time to recognise just what the UK’s welfare state has become. It not only allows poverty to continue but takes people who are already living with the stress of that poverty and heaps further stress on them. The system can be demeaning, humiliating and patronising, and all too often it seems to have been designed that way.
That attitude goes deeper than specific measures such as the vicious bedroom tax that we have already discussed this afternoon—it is also about values. For years now, divisive rhetoric such as “benefit cheats”, “scroungers v strivers” and that old favourite “hard-working families” has been used by political and media voices alike to undermine the human empathy that a welfare state depends on and to present the false notion that there are those who contribute and those who only take. The reality is that every single one of us depends on a successful welfare state and, apart from the hoarders and tax dodgers among the super-rich, we all contribute as well. As a result, this debate is not just about whether the welfare system is run by an independent Scotland, a devolved Scottish Government or the United Kingdom Government, but about the urgent need to win again, from first principles, the argument for a welfare state and a society in which we are looked after and in which everyone’s dignity matters.
We need more than just a safety-net agenda; after all, we cannot close the gap between rich and poor without addressing both sides of it—high pay as well as low pay. That said, pay levels matter not just at the top and the bottom but across the whole population. We remain, by European Union standards, a very low-wage economy, with half of working Scots earning less than £21,000 a year, and progressive taxation has to be part of the picture in relation to income and wealth taxes.
We also need to examine the structure of the economy. Especially in the period of low growth that many expect over the coming years and perhaps decades, the risk is that wages stagnate while investment by the richest continues to pay back for them. If that happens, wealth will continue to accumulate in the hands of those who are already the wealthiest and we will never achieve the fairer, more equal, healthier and happier society that we should be seeking. Moreover, if we do not close the gap between rich and poor, we will not achieve the political consent needed for a welfare system that deserves the name—in other words, one that is focused on human welfare instead of one that bullies people into low-wage work.
Does the member not acknowledge that the spend on welfare is almost £200 billion out of a budget of about £670 billion, and that it accounts for far more expenditure than anything else we spend money on?
I think that it is far more important than more or less anything else we spend money on to ensure that human dignity is protected and that all people are able to live with dignity.
I welcome the Labour amendment, because I want the Scottish Government to be bullish on the question of how procurement law can be used to address the living wage and a host of other issues, and to be willing, if necessary, to test the boundaries of European Union law. It has rightly shown that bullishness about alcohol pricing, and it should show the same on this issue.
I was not really surprised that the Conservatives lodged an amendment that I did not agree with very much, but let me pick apart a few aspects of it. It refers, for example, to “making work pay”. That prompts the question of whose work we are actually talking about and how much it should pay. We should remember that the Tory-led UK Government actually opposed the cap on bankers’ bonuses at the EU level. The idea that poor people must be made to work harder by paying them less and rich people must be made to work harder by paying them more still seems to hold sway in the UK Government.
Furthermore, what about those who cannot work because of disability, because work is not available or because work of a decent sort does not fit in with other commitments such as caring for children or relatives? It all comes back to that divisive rhetoric about “hard-working families”. We should be committed to building an economy that provides for every single one of us to live with dignity.
The Tory amendment also mentions the changes to tax allowances. Let us be clear: those changes have been regressive. The greatest percentage net change in household incomes has gone to the wealthiest, while 3 million of the poorest households have gained nothing. Gavin Brown and I—and indeed all members in the chamber—are on very high incomes, and we are paying less tax as a result of that policy. In fact, David Cameron has even bragged that people on incomes as high as £100,000 a year are paying less.
In his amendment, Gavin Brown also refers to the increase to minimum wage levels. I wish that minimum wage levels had been increased to as much as the living wage. Let us recognise that £6.50, which is what the minimum wage for over-20s is being increased to, is more than £1 an hour below the living wage. Furthermore, the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds is £5.13; for 16 and 17-year-olds, it is £3.79; and for apprentices, it is a meagre £2.73. Let us recognise that the increase is pretty paltry.
I will not support the Government amendment, partly because it deletes our proposal merely “to investigate” the idea of wage ratios.
There is more that we can do now to tackle wealth and income inequality in the devolved context. It is arguable that we can only do so properly with powers over tax and benefits. I have made it clear that this debate remains relevant whatever the outcome of the referendum. It is the wider question—the question of political direction, not just constitutional choices—that we seek to raise today.
Underneath all of that is a question of values. I have a degree of optimism that the obsession with superwealth is giving way to a wider cultural acceptance that sustainable quality of life should be the aspiration for individuals in a modern society. Whatever we can do to promote and push forward that transition to a society that does not fetishise vast wealth, we should do. I hope that the motion helps to do that.
I move,
That the Parliament is deeply concerned at the current and predicted level of wealth and income inequality and identifies tackling this inequality as key to creating a fair and successful society; understands that achieving greater equality will require closing the gap between the highest and lowest incomes, as well as progressive and redistributive wealth and income taxes; believes that everyone deserves a fair and decent wage for work that provides for them to live with dignity and that employers should not rely on the benefit system to subsidise poverty pay; condemns examples of unfair and excessive pay, such as the attempt by the Royal Bank of Scotland to pay bonuses worth 200% of salaries to its executives; welcomes the EU cap on bonuses, first proposed by the Greens-European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament, which came into force in 2014, and calls on the Scottish Government to investigate the option of establishing maximum wage ratios that would limit the difference between the lowest and highest pay.
16:26
There is not a lot in what Patrick Harvie has said that I would disagree with. All of us in the Parliament are concerned about the growing gap between the rich and the poor. It is certainly something that very much concerns the Scottish Government. That is why our economic strategy and national performance framework include cohesion and solidarity targets, which are designed to increase equality and reduce the disparities between different sections of our society.
There is no doubt that Scotland is a prosperous nation, rich in natural and human resources, yet far too many people and communities are still trapped in poverty and are prevented from realising their full potential. I find it utterly depressing that our first detailed analysis of UK Government data on wealth and assets in Scotland, which was published today, shows that 30 per cent of all households in Scotland have almost no wealth, meaning that they do not own property, they do not have a private pension or savings and they do not own items such as cars and household goods. That report also shows that those households simply do not have the income that is needed to gain the wealth and security that so many of us take for granted.
Based on current evidence and past performance, I do not believe that the UK Government will take the actions that are necessary to break the cycle of deprivation. Over the years, the Westminster system has failed to properly address the deep social inequalities that exist in Scottish society, with generation after generation feeling the impact.
I believe that Scotland needs to have full control of all economic levers in order to tackle and reverse those inequalities. Only independence would give the Scottish Parliament the powers that it needs to pursue a fairer economic model.
Income tax is clearly important in all of this. What changes would the minister’s Government make to income tax were we to become independent?
There has been lots of evidence about that. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that one way to define a tax system is to base it on principle. The best way for a new state to start out is to have a fairer system. The UK tax system has 10,000 pages of rules and regulations and more than 1,000 exemptions. We would create a system that was fairer and that allowed us to sustain public services and encourage economic growth.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister take an intervention?
I give way to John Finnie.
We all have a lot in common on this subject. To what extent does the minister believe that cutting corporation tax and giving breaks to firms such as Amazon and Starbucks will help to reduce inequality?
That will help because it will make us competitive and get more than 27,000 additional jobs into Scotland, and because we support the living wage and have a living wage policy. We will also ensure that corporations pay their taxes. Another thing that we will do in an independent Scotland is tackle tax avoidance and come down heavy on companies that do not pay tax. That is another approach in a new system.
In the meantime, we are doing what we can within the limited powers that we have to tackle the huge inequality. Members should make no mistake that we accept that there is huge inequality. What we are doing includes the actions that are set out in our child poverty strategy to maximise household incomes, improve children’s wellbeing and life chances and ensure that every one of us can live in a sustainable home and community.
It is simply unacceptable that, in a wealthy nation such as ours, a third of our children are not getting the start in life that they deserve. That is particularly unacceptable when the latest analysis shows that, if Scotland were an independent country, we would be the 14th wealthiest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
While the UK Government’s austerity programme is placing households under increasing financial pressure—we all know that they are under such pressure—we are defending and extending certain core services, rights and benefits through the social wage. We are providing free personal care for the elderly; abolishing tuition fees; ending bridge tolls; abolishing prescription charges; providing free eye examinations; freezing council tax; providing concessionary bus travel; increasing the provision of free nursery education; and introducing free school meals for primary 1 to 3 children from January 2015.
The Scottish Government takes low pay seriously.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry; I have taken two interventions already.
We have introduced the living wage across the public services that we are directly responsible for. We are encouraging the use of the living wage throughout the public sector. We have taken direct action to raise minimum rates of pay in the parts of the public sector that are under our responsibility, with a minimum pay uplift of £300 a year for those who earn less than £21,000. We are also funding a Poverty Alliance pilot to encourage private employers to become accredited as living wage employers.
The measures that the Scottish Government is taking go far beyond any that the UK Government is putting in place for the lower paid.
Not from a Labour Government.
We do not have a Labour Government and, given how Labour is behaving, we are unlikely to get one.
In addition, the Deputy First Minister has announced proposed stage 3 amendments to the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, which Patrick Harvie mentioned, to make it explicit that the guidance about bidder selection will address remuneration and payment of the living wage.
Members should make no mistake that the Scottish Government is committed to supporting and promoting the Scottish living wage. Local authorities and contractors are well aware of what is expected of them as regards the living wage. We are doing everything that we can and we are still negotiating with the EU on whether we can do anything further in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill.
We have made it clear that we support the living wage. We have shown that by our action, by what we have done across the Scottish Government and in the public services and by the funding that we have given the Poverty Alliance. However, every effort that we have made has been hindered by the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is in her last 20 seconds.
It is clear—Patrick Harvie is right—that the welfare system is broken and cannot work for Scotland.
I hear that I am in my last 20 minutes—[Interruption.] I mean 20 seconds. Sorry—I thought that I had another 20 minutes, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.]
We will address poverty and inequality properly only when the Parliament has full control over all its resources, which include taxation and benefits. When that happens, we will be able to properly address wealth inequality in Scotland.
I move amendment S4M-09926.3, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:
“recognises that it is only when the Parliament has full control over taxation and benefits that Scotland will be able to address wealth and income inequality properly”.
16:34
I welcome the opportunity to debate wealth and income inequality and I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the subject to the chamber. I welcome very much the approach that he has taken. Labour will support the motion at decision time because he has made the debate about political will and doing what is right and not about constitutional change. I respect him for doing that.
I share the aspiration that is expressed in the motion for
“a fair and successful society”.
I recognise that, to achieve that, we need progressive policies that make work pay and seek to redistribute wealth.
The Labour Party was founded on the principle of sharing wealth to create a more equal society, and that is very much at the heart of all that we do. We are putting in place bold policies to tackle inequality. We have proposals for a progressive system of taxation that would enable those with the broadest shoulders to bear the biggest burden. We propose a freeze on energy prices, as we recognise that struggling families should not have to choose between heating and eating. We also support the introduction of a living wage because we need to make work pay. None of those progressive policies is supported by the Tories—as we would expect—or by the SNP.
We know that costs are rising and wages are declining. A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on minimum income standards tells us that the price of a basket of essential goods has risen by a staggering 25 per cent in the space of five years. Increasingly, people who are in work, as well as those who are out of work, are not making ends meet. I am told that many of the people who are now appearing at food banks are not unemployed but are in low-paid jobs and are struggling to cope before their wages come in.
The SNP’s only answer—as evidenced by the minister’s speech today—irrespective of the question that it is asked, is that independence will cure all ills. It is genuinely disappointing that the minister is not prepared to do anything, but one could say that that is consistent as well as totally lacking in ambition for people in communities throughout Scotland. Like the First Minister, she does not want a Labour Government. At the most recent election, the First Minister suggested that people vote Liberal instead—I am sure that Willie Rennie was grateful for that. What is it about the SNP that means that it does not want to see positive change, not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom?
Will the member give way?
No. We have heard enough from the SNP.
There is no guarantee that changing the constitution would deliver the progressive change that would ensure a fairer society. It would take political will to do that. There is nothing progressive about the SNP’s proposals. It is the party that wants to cut corporation tax by 3 per cent more than even George Osborne wants to cut it, that refuses to commit to a 50 per cent top rate of income tax and that seems much more interested in protecting big businesses, bankers and the most wealthy. When the SNP has the opportunity to help some of the lowest-paid in society, it is found wanting.
Next week, we will debate the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. The bill sets out important principles for how we spend £10 billion in public contracts each year. Here is an opportunity to do something about the living wage and zero-hours contracts. Here is an opportunity to improve the income of 400,000 low-paid workers, 64 per cent of whom are women. However, so far, the SNP has set its face against improving the lot of the low paid. The SNP is good at talking but less good when it comes to taking action.
I will give way to the minister if she will tell us now whether the Government will amend the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3 to include the living wage.
Jackie Baillie is well aware that we are doing everything that we legally can and that we, as a Government, support the living wage.
That did not sound like a “yes” to me. The SNP is again setting its face against that policy.
The minister’s amendment removes the final sentence of the Greens’ motion, which is a rather gentle request for the Government to investigate wage ratios. I admit to being surprised by that because, when Ken Macintosh brought the matter up at stage 2 of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, Nicola Sturgeon said:
“I whole-heartedly endorse many of—if not all—his comments.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 12 March 2014; c 2772.]
That was the SNP position a mere few weeks ago. Why has it changed? Why is that proposal to be removed from the motion?
Low wages are not good for individuals, for society or for the economy. We are caught between two Governments with the wrong priorities. The Tories are not progressive and the SNP pretends to be but offers nothing to change the lives of the people of Scotland.
I move amendment S4M-09926.1, to insert at end:
“; acknowledges that over 400,000 people in Scotland are working for less than the living wage and that nearly two thirds of these are women; notes that payment of the living wage would boost the earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker by over £2,600 a year, and calls for the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill to be amended to extend the payment of the living wage to public contracts.”
16:39
It will have come as no surprise to the Green Party that we are not going to support its motion and that our amendment is of a completely different flavour. We do not agree with the thrust of what Patrick Harvie has said or with what he is attempting to do.
Nevertheless, I will say this for the Green Party: it is very clear about what it wants to achieve, and it is equally clear about how it would achieve it. It would introduce a completely different tax system and there would be a large increase in most taxes to pay for its proposals. In that sense, the Green Party’s position stacks up; we simply disagree with it for political reasons.
I take issue with Patrick Harvie’s categorisation of the welfare system in the UK as being designed to bully and demean. Although he did not use the same words, he repeated in spirit what the Scottish Government has said, which is that the welfare system is being dismantled by the coalition Government. Patrick Harvie did not specifically say that, but I believe that he alluded to it.
I am saying it now.
Patrick Harvie must, as must everyone in the chamber, accept the basic facts about what is spent on the welfare system in the UK. I put the statistics to him: it is almost £200 billion out of about £670 billion. It is important to note that it is the largest single item of expenditure by the UK Government.
Can Gavin Brown clarify what is spent on pensions?
As Annabelle Ewing probably knows, something in the region of about 46 per cent of the £200 billion figure that I gave is related to pensions, which leaves more than £100 billion for other welfare measures. That is still considerably more than just about any other department in the UK, and if other parties are unhappy with the expenditure on welfare, it is incumbent on them to suggest how they would pay for it, given that it has grown far more than any other department.
I name-checked Mr Harvie before, so I feel that I ought to give way to him again.
I am grateful to Mr Brown. I point out to him that the figure of £100 million that he has arrived at is not exactly eye-watering. It is what we would spend on about one mile of urban motorway in Scotland.
The figure is £100 billion. Mr Harvie must have misheard me. It is more than 50 per cent of the original £200 billion that I mentioned in my initial answer, so it is substantially more than the cost of one mile of motorway. Even the Green Party, which denounces motorways, will realise that the sum is substantially more than that.
We are disappointed with the Scottish Government’s position, because it is suggesting that it would do things completely differently were we to be independent, but from what we have seen on paper we know that that is not true. The Scottish Government has no plans at all to change income tax. Mr Swinney has been at pains to reiterate that point, so the Scottish Government is making no changes to the tax system other than its pledge on corporation tax.
As we found out last week, most of welfare would remain the same. The largest changes that are being made to welfare programmes would remain. Not a single Scottish National Party member was able to contradict that last week. Where the SNP has had a choice and has had the levers and the powers, it has gone for universal benefits almost all the time. If changing inequality was the most important thing to the Scottish Government, it would not have gone for universal benefits on just about every policy measure that it has brought in. There was a large list of them from the minister, and all of them were universal—helping everybody as opposed to helping those whom the SNP claims to want to help.
I want to put on the record some of the conclusions of a report on inequality in Scotland by David Bell and David Eiser of the University of Stirling management school. It is worth noting some of comments that are made in their paper. They accept and point out that gross income inequality is relatively high in the UK, although wealth inequality is less so, but they also point out that most of the growth happened between 1975 and 1990, and that since the mid-90s there has been virtually no increase in net income inequality. At the same time, the Nordic countries that many people on the left want to replicate have seen their inequality increase at a far faster rate than that of the United Kingdom.
It is worth putting those points on the record. We accept that there are issues, but the facts are often not put on the table for the other side.
I move amendment S4M-09926.4, to leave out from “is deeply concerned” to end and insert:
“believes that wealth and income inequality is best tackled by making work pay; understands that such a commitment runs through the ambitions of the UK Government and recognises that, since it came to power, increases to the income tax personal allowance have lifted over three million people on the lowest wages out of income tax; commends the plans for a rise in the minimum wage and welcomes the Chancellor’s commitment to fight for full employment; acknowledges the vital steps that the UK Government has taken to put the nation’s finances in order, and notes that the UK is currently projected to be the fastest growing of the G7 economies”.
We move to the open debate. We are tight for time. I call Willie Rennie.
16:44
I am frustrated by the pockets of poverty that exist in our country. I am impatient and I want to make that change. I want everybody to have a chance to get on in life. SNP members do not have a monopoly on care about such issues. That is why we must focus on the solutions rather than just focusing on the words.
I admire Patrick Harvie’s strong socialist rhetoric, but I am rather puzzled by the timid solution. We often hear Patrick Harvie bashing the rich, condemning the establishment and railing against inequality, so I expected something a bit more than what we have in the motion. Perhaps it could have included the nationalisation of all the major industries to control wages, an end to all bonuses for bankers, turning the minimum wage into the living wage, price controls, the nationalisation of housing, or even just one socialist policy that might begin to match Patrick Harvie’s powerful rhetoric—but no. What we have in the motion is a call for a proposal to conduct an investigation into the possibility of introducing at some point in the future maximum wage ratios.
Members should not get me wrong; I have no problem with such an investigation. I am sympathetic to the proposal, but I expected something a bit more radical in the motion. The substance of the motion does not match the rhetoric in the speech.
It is, however, fascinating to see that the Scottish Government, which often uses the same type of rhetoric as Patrick Harvie uses, cannot even bring itself to support that proposal. Again, the Government’s rhetoric did not match the timid proposal from the Green Party.
Let us contrast that with the action that has been taken by the UK Government. The national minimum wage has been increased to an hourly rate of £6.50, which delivers an extra £355 per year to a full-time worker. Vince Cable has also committed to supporting future rises as suggested by the Low Pay Commission. There has been a big increase in tax thresholds that will put £700 back into the pockets of those who are on low and medium incomes, but not of those who are on high incomes. The tax threshold will go up to £10,500 next year, and Liberal Democrats want it to go up to £12,500 so that no one who is on the minimum wage will pay any income tax at all. However, after last week’s debate on this very subject, the SNP members and the Labour members voted against that proposal, so now we know where they stand on cutting tax on low and middle incomes.
Our tax cut has benefited more than 2 million Scots and has taken more than 200,000 out of paying tax altogether. We have expanded childcare with tax allowances, which gives children hope that they can reach their potential.
Will Willie Rennie take an intervention on that point?
The member is in his final minute.
We have also taken action to tackle tax avoidance, including making 40 changes to tax law since 2010 in order to close avoidance loopholes. We are also working with the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on a 15-point action plan to counter base erosion and profit shifting. We have limited the pay of the highest earners in the public sector and stopped massive increases in bankers’ bonuses at RBS. Our delivery is far more radical than an investigation about a possibility.
16:48
A number of people who are in the chamber today will have had the privilege of attending the memorial service for the late Margo MacDonald MSP a couple of weeks ago. During the tributes to Margo, her maiden speech in the House of Commons was quoted. As is traditional, she used her maiden speech to praise her predecessor who was, of course, a Labour MP. She quoted his maiden speech, made in the 1940s, in which he condemned the poverty in which his constituents were living. She made the observation that, in 1973, her constituents in Govan were still experiencing high levels of poverty, poor housing, and deprivation.
It is 41 years since Margo won that by-election in Govan, and we know that today 870,000 people in Scotland still live in poverty, despite the fact that for the past 33 years Scotland has given more per head to London than it has got back. There is clearly something wrong with the system. We are talking about successive Westminster Labour and Tory Governments that have failed to address the inequalities that Margo identified in her maiden speech and which her predecessor identified in his maiden speech.
Shortly after Margo was elected, Margaret Thatcher began her ascent to power. Most people would understand that that was the time when inequality, particularly between the richest and the poorest, began to increase. That has never been rectified. Throughout years of Labour Government, under Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown, that was not addressed.
I had intended to talk about how this Parliament has addressed some of the inequalities that were identified by Margo back in the 1970s, for example through the universal benefits that were introduced by Labour and the SNP. However, Jackie Baillie’s speech was so partisan and misleading that I cannot let it go. We had years of Labour Government at Westminster and here at Holyrood. You talk about household incomes—under Labour, households experienced a 60 per cent rise in council tax.
Will Joan McAlpine take an intervention?
No. I am not taking an intervention. You failed to introduce a living wage. You allowed 600,000 people who were earning less than £16,000 a year to pay prescription charges.
Can we have remarks being made through the chair, please? We will have less “you”.
It was a Labour Government at Westminster, with Ed Miliband as the energy secretary, that allowed further deregulation of the energy market that saw a whopping rise in fuel bills. We need take no lectures from Labour on eradicating poverty, because it had its chance.
Will Joan McAlpine give way?
The member is in her last 50 seconds.
Patrick Harvie said that he deliberately did not mention independence in the motion. I can understand why he wanted to achieve consensus. However, the motion talks about benefits and income inequality, which are things that can be changed only if we have the powers in this Parliament to do so. It is impossible to ignore independence in this debate. We now know from the Child Poverty Action Group that another 100,000 children will be in poverty by 2020 if we continue with the union and this Westminster Government. If we are going to reduce inequality and reverse the mistakes of the past, Scotland must be independent.
16:52
Most people would accept that we live in an ill-divided world. We need only reflect back on the terrible tragedy in Bangladesh, when thousands lost their lives working virtually in slave conditions, on low wages, to produce goods that many of us are happy to buy cheaply. We know that there are many grieving families in Bhopal who have not had justice after their loved ones lost their lives in dreadful conditions there. Barack Obama has called income inequality
“the defining challenge of our time”.
We do not just see the problems of inequality throughout the rest of the world. We see them here, in this country, too. Many members have alluded to that. It is easy to point the finger of blame at others and to say that it is all their fault. It is right to point to failures of the last Labour Government at Westminster, which probably did not do enough to curb the greed and excesses of the bankers. At the same time, though, we should acknowledge what Gordon Brown did. The introduction of working family credits and pensioner tax credits helped many of the poorest families in this country. Let us get a balance here.
It is right to talk about the failures of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition at Westminster, but will our whole approach to politics in the Scottish Parliament be about defining the failures of others? Will we refuse to look at what we can do to make a difference? As Jackie Baillie pointed out, there are things that can be done by the Scottish Government. As Margaret Burgess and others have said, we do not need independence to make a difference to the lives of many ordinary families in this country. As has been said many times, we can use the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill to make a difference.
However, there are other things that could be done by the Scottish Government. We could do more to help the poor in this country by restoring some of the poverty budgets that have been cut by the Scottish Government, but what about tackling the excesses at the top, which are directly under the control of the Scottish Government? What about doing something about the money that is paid to the top executives of Scottish Water? In 2011-12, the chief executive of Scottish Water had a salary of £240,000. Similarly, the Scottish Government could do something about the hundreds of thousands of pounds that are earned by the chief executives of Scottish Enterprise, of the health boards and of the other public organisations that it funds. Further, the Labour Party should work with the Scottish Government to ask how it can help to control some of the excesses of the chief executives and others in local authorities, who earn obscene amounts of money compared to what the lowest-paid earn.
There is a lot that we can do. It diminishes each and every one of us if all that we can do is say that the fault lies with someone else and that there is nothing we can do here. There is plenty that this Parliament and the Scottish Government can do. We can start by curbing the excesses in the private sector, which are obscene, and the excesses in the public sector, which are within the Government’s control at the moment.
16:56
I am broadly supportive of the motion. I certainly agree that we need to introduce rules and ensure that we have the right legislation to tax income and wealth and/or to limit incomes.
I was particularly interested in the Conservative amendment and the amendment that was lodged by the Liberal Democrats but was not accepted for debate. Both refer positively to the UK Government, but there the similarity ends. The Liberal Democrats would have left in the entire Green motion, with all its talk of taxation and limiting incomes. By contrast, the Conservatives would wipe out virtually the whole motion.
I am pleased that the Government amendment will leave much in. Specifically, it will keep the bit about
“progressive and redistributive wealth and income taxes.”
That is absolutely right. I think that we all agree that income tax can be used to redistribute income, but we should not forget also that taxes such as inheritance tax are necessary in redistributing wealth.
However, all the taxes and laws have their limitations. People find ways of increasing their income, such as by moving to other countries, or by getting at least part of their pay paid elsewhere, and by using overseas tax havens. Of course, there is the old argument that our businesses will not attract the best people if we do not offer competitive salaries. However, that argument has been slightly undermined by the fact that the UK already overpays people at the top in comparison to other countries, and by the fact that paying high salaries clearly did not ensure that the banks ran well.
One of the challenges that we face is attitudes. How do we change attitudes? I do not believe that we are going to deal with inequality fully unless we make progress on changing attitudes. Specifically, we need to change the acceptability of greed. Greed is a bad thing and we need to challenge it. However, laws and regulations are not very good at changing people inside. We seem to have become a more greedy society, and there seems to be less of a moral sense in some people that, if we have been fortunate and have done well, we have a duty not to take an unfair share of the cake or, at least, we have a duty to give a chunk of it back to wider society.
I argue that faith has something to say in this regard, although I accept that there are people in the churches who have not always limited their incomes or given away as much as they could have given. Jesus commended a poor woman who had very little, but gave it all away, whereas richer people would give away ostentatious amounts but keep even more for themselves and their own comfort. I therefore argue today that part of the answer to the problem would be to change people’s internal attitudes. That can be tackled in a range of ways, but it certainly includes families and schools, in terms of the upbringing and education of children.
Does television advertising encourage children to want more? If we are going to take control of broadcasting at some stage, that is something that we will have to consider.
As Hugh Henry correctly said, the public sector is a factor, so we could set an example. I agree that we should not interfere too much in local government but, in Glasgow, for example, successive chief executives’ pay has gone up much faster than that of staff in general. Whether that is the responsibility of Scottish local government, the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government, it is certainly a Scottish issue.
I am willing to accept that Glasgow competes with UK cities and that we are not entirely masters of our own destiny—that applies to the public sector and the private sector—but at least we have to try. If we made an attempt to narrow the gap between the top and the bottom, that would be a start. I certainly do not see the present UK Government even attempting to do that.
I call Alex Rowley. You have up to four minutes, Mr Rowley. We are very tight for time, so less would be more, please.
17:00
I recently met a group of people who worked in private sector care homes. As the discussion went on, I realised that many of them had two things in common: they were absolutely dedicated to caring for the people in the care homes in which they worked, and the majority of them earned the minimum wage.
In terms of the value that we place on people’s employment in Scotland, it strikes me that people who care for others are worth much more than the minimum wage, as anybody who has had a member of their family in a care home would say.
Last year, when I was the leader of Fife Council, the Scottish Government did a deal with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities under which it agreed that care homes would be paid a 2.5 per cent increase. Indeed, the Scottish Government had to put some of the money into that.
As the leader of Fife Council, I was also forever being lobbied by care home owners who consistently told me that the cost of introducing the living wage would put them out of business. I sometimes wonder whether the Scottish Government’s reluctance to include the living wage in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill has more to do with lobbying and the potential cost than it has to do with the EU.
I point out the report that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation produced today, which argues that the gap in attainment begins before children start school and widens as they get older. The study also found that, in early secondary school, only 28 per cent of children from poorer families performed well in numeracy compared with 56 per cent of those from the least disadvantaged backgrounds.
Educationists and social workers have said for years that they could identify in the early years the children who were less likely to succeed in the education system and, therefore, less likely to succeed throughout their lives and more likely to live on low incomes, in deprivation and in poverty. That cycle of deprivation continues and continues within Scotland. If we are to address it, we must focus our policies on the early years.
A few years ago, the Scottish Government talked about a change fund for the early years. Fife Council made £7.8 million available for that change fund; the Scottish Government made not a penny available. The national health service was to be a partner in that fund but made not a penny available. If we are serious about tackling the early years and doing the work that Fife Council is doing now, money and resources need to be directed into those services so that we improve the life opportunities of children and so that they start school with a level playing field.
Continuing that investment needs a radical shift in policy. It needs a policy that recognises that the schools in poorer areas are underperforming and that we can do much more there. I have seen that being made a priority in Fife, but it requires political will and the courage of our convictions to put the resources where they will make the biggest difference. The Scottish Government has failed to do that and should consider its policies if it is serious about tackling inequality.
17:04
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I agree with many of the comments that have already been made.
A few weeks ago, while tidying a pile of books, I happened to come across “The Spirit Level”, which other members have mentioned, and I started to re-read it. I think that the propositions and analysis that are put forward by the authors of the book, together with the concept of the humankind index, are worth exploring further.
We cannot ignore the fact that life expectancy in rich countries is determined by the size of the income gap. For example, Japan has a narrow gap, which benefits the nation by giving it the highest life expectancy. Japan and Scandinavian countries have lower crime rates and better income equality, whereas the US and UK have a wide income gap and thus higher crime rates. Those findings have been confirmed over many years by Carol Craig and others in their work at the Centre for Confidence and Well-being.
Does the member appreciate that one of the key arguments in “The Spirit Level” and in the debate that it started is on wage differentials? Can she explain, because none of the other SNP speakers has done so, why the SNP is supporting Margaret Burgess’s amendment, which would remove the one and only call in the motion to investigate that very issue?
If we are going to make a significant difference on inequality, we need to have all the tools—we cannot just tinker at the edges.
If I needed an extra incentive to campaign with all my might for independence—of course, I do not—it would be the revelation a few weeks ago that the five richest families in the UK are worth more than £28.2 billion while the 20 per cent least well-off, which is 12.6 million people, are worth £28.1 billion. According to Oxfam research, across the world the richest 85 people share a combined wealth of £1 trillion, which equates to the wealth that is shared by the world’s 3.5 billion poorest people. Of course, we are not immune to that inequality in Scotland. The Sunday Herald has reported that the richest 10 per cent of households in Scotland have 900 times the accumulated wealth of the poorest 10 per cent.
The reason why the politicians and lawmakers on the SNP benches want full power and responsibility over our economy is so that we can start redressing the balance, because evidence tells us that, under the previous Labour Government and the current Tory-Lib Dem one, inequality has increased in the UK as a whole.
I am old enough to remember that, in previous periods of recession, when London had a cold, Scotland got the flu. However, with the Parliament and the SNP Scottish Government, we have been able to use our limited powers to mitigate some of the effects, although it is still the poorest who suffer, as we can see from the rise of food banks.
Why is it that Westminster takes a light-touch approach to tax avoidance and evasion while welfare recipients are attacked with the harshest of penalties? Why are welfare budgets capped when budgets for Trident and arms are allowed to run out of control? Why are company directors allowed to scratch one another’s backs by offering small cliques absurd sums in fees and to give chief executives huge sums on a never-ending upward spiral, with which the public sector has to compete?
Please draw to a close.
However, it is obvious, having listened to Hugh Henry, that salaries in Labour-controlled councils will start to come down.
You are in your last five seconds.
In conclusion, examples worldwide show that less inequality leads to a stronger economy and a society that is more comfortable with itself. However, given Westminster’s record, we cannot wait for the other parties to do anything different.
As we move to the closing speeches, I remind members who have taken part in the debate that they should be in the chamber.
17:08
They say of socialists that, sooner or later, they will run out of other people’s money. Listening to some of the speeches that have been made makes me think that some of us might live long enough to see that point proven once again.
The fact is that the left-wing consensus in the Parliament offers Scotland nothing except dishonesty. When we hear the continual repetition of the line that the gap between rich and poor is somehow increasing in Scotland, we are hearing something that the facts simply do not bear out.
I aspire to a different approach. I believe that this country needs smaller Government, less regulation, lower taxation and a rebalancing between the public and private sectors. People should keep more of the money that they earn, particularly those who are at the average and below average end of the wage scale. That is why I am proud of the UK Government’s record. The Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat colleagues have done much to take the low paid out of tax—in some cases altogether.
It is vital that we understand what Scotland needs for its long-term prosperity. We should ensure that people keep more of the money that they earn and that we do not make the mistake that Margaret Burgess highlighted in her opening remarks. She said that property ownership is one of the key measures of wealth. That was from the housing minister who is currently taking away the right of individual tenants to buy their own homes. That is a hypocrisy if ever there was one.
It seems that a separate Scotland, as described by the Scottish National Party, would be in the business of seizing wealth and property and exploiting that money for the benefit of what the SNP saw as its priorities rather than the priorities of the people. That would create what can only be described as a client economy. It would not be an economy of independence; it would be an economy of dependence and nothing else.
We have been told again that the welfare system is broken and cannot work for Scotland. Why is there no formal proposal for change? Why is there no budget for change? The truth is that the Scottish Government has no intention of changing anything, and the more we ask, the more we are disappointed about where that will go.
Surely if we are to talk in the chamber about the redistribution of wealth, it is at least as important that we talk about the creation of wealth. That is why the Conservatives will continue to work for and aspire to full employment, taking the low paid out of tax altogether, and giving the low paid the opportunity to own property and to acquire or accrue wealth over time. We believe that those who can work should work rather than rely for their livelihood on the tax that is paid by their neighbours. Those on higher incomes already pay a higher proportion of total income tax revenue than they did under the previous Labour Government.
The acute labour shortages that we currently see in some areas in the Scottish economy show us that wages can be driven up in that economic environment. Those lessons need to be learned and applied elsewhere.
We know that the lesson is that price fixing and wage fixing, as attempted by previous Governments, particularly in the 1970s, have a disastrous and negative effect. I believe in liberal economic theory, that we in Scotland should apply it, and that the Green Party’s approach is authoritarian socialist dogma of the worst possible kind.
17:12
The debate has been very interesting. Various points have been raised across the chamber, and I would like to reflect on some of them.
I will start with the minister’s remarks. Margaret Burgess said that the Government is doing what it can to tackle inequality now with the available resources. I have sat in the Parliament for three years now, and I can say to the minister that I believe that that is completely untrue.
That is evidenced by many of the reports that have come out. We have reflected on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, which talked about the attainment gap between the poorest and the richest households. The children in the poorest households are not doing as well at school. That gap is not a small one; it is very wide.
The progress that the Government has made over the past eight years with full control over education has been absolutely minuscule. I heard of a school in my region in which 40 per cent of the pupils in secondary 1 had a primary 2 reading and writing age. That is absolutely disgraceful in a developed nation and a developed economy. We should be spending every minute in the Parliament looking at that.
My colleague Alex Rowley made a powerful speech that touched on a number of things. He talked about numeracy that is just not up to scratch. Literacy and numeracy are two big problems in our education system. Our poorest children are not succeeding and are not getting the support that they need.
I sat in a meeting of the Education and Culture Committee with Joan McAlpine, who spoke earlier in this debate, when we had a panel of four educationists in front of us. She asked them what more powers we would need in order to improve education in this country. Every one of the panellists said that to do that we need not more powers but political will and ideas.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I do not have time for interventions.
We need action from the SNP, but it is taking out literacy support in Dundee; it is taking out the early years practitioners who work in the poorest schools supporting the teaching of literacy and numeracy, in order to cover the pledge on 600 hours of childcare. Derek Mackay and Margaret Burgess know that that is the case.
The minister said that they were taking every opportunity to negotiate with the EU on the living wage. Again, I say to the minister that that is completely untrue. The Scottish Government is prepared to take its fight on minimum alcohol pricing to the EU and see it through, but it is not prepared to do that for the living wage. Alex Rowley perhaps pinpointed the reason for that, which is lobbying on the cost of the commitment to the living wage.
Despite advice from the European Commission and EU spokespeople that the rules allow it, the Scottish Government is not prepared to include a provision on the living wage in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill. The Government is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is and support the introduction of the living wage. It is just wrong for the minister to suggest that the Government is prepared to do that.
I turn to the Government’s pledge on cutting corporation tax.
You are in your final 25 seconds.
It is the only tax pledge in the Government’s white paper. The Government talks about poverty, but there are no pledges on tax policy for anyone but business. How about income tax? How about tax credits? How about the personal allowance? There is not one tax pledge or idea for working people.
On my final point, Presiding Officer, energy bills dropped by £100 under Ed Miliband as energy minister—
You must close, please.
Joan McAlpine was clearly not in the chamber on the day when the energy minister, Fergus Ewing, reacted to Labour proposals for an energy price freeze.
Thanks very much—
Such regulation was anathema to Fergus Ewing. The SNP should be taking action.
I now call on Margaret Burgess—up to six minutes, please.
17:17
I cannot say that this has been the most consensual debate that we have had in the chamber, but I would say that there has been consensus—I do not include our Tory colleagues in it—on the gap between the rich and the poor and that we have to do something to tackle that. I will take on a couple of points that have been made during the debate.
Like Joan McAlpine, I was amazed when I heard some of the comments from the Labour Party, whose members speak as if the Labour Party has never had an opportunity in the UK or Scottish Parliaments to do something about the suggestions that its members make. The income and wealth gap is continuing to widen, but that has happened under successive Westminster Governments.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I am not taking an intervention at this point.
As I said, the gap has continued to widen under successive Westminster Governments, which have not dealt with it properly.
There was mention earlier of the minimum wage. The reason why we have both a minimum wage and a living wage is because the minimum wage was set too low and successive Westminster Governments have not kept it up in line with inflation—something that a Scottish Government in an independent Scotland would do. That is why we have a minimum wage that keep people cannot live off, which is a disgrace. That is a Westminster policy and it is responsible for that.
I will say again, as clearly as I can, that the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to the living wage and to promoting it. We have set an example in that regard. However, we have legal advice, which has been published, that tells us that we cannot include a provision in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill to make the living wage mandatory.
That said, the Deputy First Minister has made crystal clear our intention on the living wage and how that will be addressed by stage 3 amendments to the bill. Local authorities and those bidding to procure public contracts will be in no doubt about the Scottish Government’s position on a living wage. I absolutely refute everything that Alex Rowley said on that and his suggestion that we are being lobbied in some way on the living wage—that is simply not true. We absolutely support a living wage.
We will also maintain the minimum wage and increase it in line with inflation, as we would do with tax credits and other social security benefits. That has not happened in the past.
There was some criticism from the members on the Conservative benches of our position on tax. It was said that we have nothing laid out on tax. Unfortunately I have only six minutes for this speech, but I refer members to the whole section in the white paper “Scotland’s Future” that covers our position on a tax system in Scotland. We set out our early priorities, which focus on fairness and economic growth. We are absolutely committed to building—
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
As I was talking about the Conservatives, I give way to Gavin Brown.
What specific changes would be made to income tax as early priorities?
If Gavin Brown wants me to say what the rate will be set at, my response is that that will be for future Scottish Governments. What I will say is that we are committed to building a tax system that stimulates the economy, builds social cohesion and sustains Scotland’s public services. As I said earlier, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that a new nation and a new state designing a new system can only be better. We can make savings in doing that, and we can certainly do something about the tax avoidance that currently happens—we will deal with that as well.
Full fiscal responsibility would allow key decisions on taxation—
Will the minister give way?
I have two minutes left.
I think that that is a no, Mr Smith. Sit down, please.
I have given way in both of my speeches in the debate and I have done so more than any other member.
The current UK tax system is complex and costly. Independence would allow us to design a simpler and cheaper system.
We heard a lot from Willie Rennie and his Conservative colleagues about tax credits and what they are doing in terms of low pay and tax, but the UK Treasury’s own analysis shows that households will be worse off as a result of changes to taxation, benefits and public spending that the UK Government is implementing. The average household will be the equivalent of £757 worse off in 2015-16 as a result of cuts to public services, benefit reforms and tax changes that the UK Government has already announced and which are due to be implemented. On the same basis, households in the bottom income quintile will suffer cuts that are equivalent to £814 a year.
What we are hearing from the UK Government shows that it is giving money in one way but that that money is going in another way, and the poor are becoming worse off. The UK Government’s own analysis shows that.
I agree that wealth redistribution alone is not enough to reduce inequality, but “Scotland’s Future” sets out a broad approach to tackling inequality. There is political will from the SNP and the Government to do that. We want to help people to move into sustained work, to support people to develop skills and to make progress that will help to support better solidarity and cohesion in Scotland.
You should close, minister.
I end by repeating something that I said earlier: only independence will help us to build a fairer and more prosperous Scotland where we can finally eradicate inequality and poverty.
17:23
I thank members for their contributions. Apparently I am an authoritarian socialist and also not radical enough for a Liberal Democrat. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between.
I begin by giving credit where credit is due. In her opening speech, Margaret Burgess gave a staunch defence of universal services, and I agreed with that whole-heartedly. She talked about the Scottish Government’s national performance framework, which takes steps in the direction of a broader measure of economic success than simply growth. It does not go as far as I would like, but I welcome the fact that it takes steps in the right direction. She said clearly that she believes that the Westminster system has failed and will not deliver in the future.
However, when challenged by Gavin Brown to say what income tax changes the SNP would implement, she did not have specifics to offer. She said—and she repeated at the end of her closing speech—that only independence can deliver the change that we need. No. If we have the political will and we do not have independence, we can only do a little, but if we have independence and we do not have the political will, we can do nothing. We need to have both. I implore colleagues who support independence, as I do, to recognise that it is not the only thing that we need.
When the minister was challenged by John Finnie on corporation tax cuts and bungs from the taxpayer for tax dodgers such as Amazon, I am afraid that it would be polite to say that she struggled.
Willie Rennie asked for something more radical. I am happy to send him a copy of the Green Party manifesto, where he can read all about the citizens income, a shorter working week, land value tax and community and public ownership. However, this debate was not intended to be about the Green Party’s manifesto; it was intended to seek agreement on the principle. I am sorry if Willie Rennie does not care to join that agreement—I regret that—but his saying so frees me up to say that, if I am being timid, at least I am not simply saying, “Please let me join up with the Tories, and I will try to give a hard-right Government a kinder face.”
John Mason was quite right to say that the Tory amendment is the only one that seeks to delete the whole motion and every aspect of the argument about inequality. He also made an important argument about greed, quite rightly. It was a faith-based argument, and from his perspective that is honest, of course. However, I politely point out that religion, and Christianity in particular, can be advanced by him to make a good point about greed or advanced by David Cameron to defend his Government and its dismal record.
I apologise to Gavin Brown for mishearing him on the cost of welfare. To hear “million” instead of “billion” is to make no small error. Perhaps in addition to having a more sustainable transport policy we will need to put up with an end to tax avoidance and the cancellation of Trident renewal—I guess I could live with that if that is what it takes to fund a welfare state that is worthy of the name.
Jackie Baillie talked sincerely about what Labour values mean to her. She said that sharing wealth is what Labour is all about and is at the core of everything that Labour does. I welcome that intent and I do not for a moment doubt its sincerity, but just as I want my fellow independence supporters to accept that independence by itself gives no guarantees in that regard, I want Jackie Baillie to acknowledge that a Labour Government gives no guarantees either.
Let us remember those 13 years of Labour government when we saw the continuation of corporation tax cuts that were begun by the predecessor Government. There has been little interruption in the downward graph of corporation tax during Tory, Labour and coalition Governments at UK level. Let us remember that Mr Mandelson said that he was extremely comfortable with people becoming immensely wealthy. New Labour, in 13 years of government, sought accommodation with the neoliberal model; it did not seek its defeat. That is the most important point to remember.
We need the political will. Whether people want to change the UK Government or the UK constitution, neither gives a guarantee of success—[Interruption.] I can hear someone heckling behind me, saying that there is no guarantee in much of what we do in life, if that is what—
No, I said that there is no guarantee of success.
That is absolutely true. This debate should be about opening up the possibilities and giving ourselves the chance to make progress towards a fairer and more equal society. None of us should imagine or seek to pretend that our policy on the constitution or a change of Government gives that guarantee.
Last year, the Green and independent debate was about the legacy of the Thatcher Government. The timing was controversial but, apart from the Conservative defence of that Government, there was an acknowledgement from most members of the damaging effects of the Thatcher legacy. The fiercest critics of the Thatcher Government must acknowledge that it had a deep, profound and lasting impact. What is needed now is nothing less: a political transformation that is every bit as dramatic, every bit as deep and every bit as lasting.
There are those who want to change the UK Government and there are those who want to leave the UK. I have empathy with both groups. However, whichever objective we have, my fear is that the tribal hostility between us could threaten our ability to deliver the kind of political transformation that our country needs when 19 September comes around. When 19 September comes around, we must accept the result. If Scotland votes yes, those who campaigned to stay in the union will have to accept that we have the responsibility to take up the challenge that the Scottish people have given us and try to achieve that political transformation; if Scotland votes no, those who campaigned for a yes vote will have to accept that our responsibility is to achieve as much political progress as we can within the limits that the Scottish people have chosen to endorse.
You need to wind up, Mr Harvie.
I once again thank all members for their speeches. Perhaps this is a debate that we can have properly only after 19 September; nevertheless, I am grateful for members’ engagement on the issue beforehand.
Previous
Energy and Climate ChangeNext
Business Motions