The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17437, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the programme for government—building the best future for Scotland.
14:50
We are at a crucial moment in Scotland’s economic history—a history that has been shaped by ambition, innovation, openness, resilience and collaboration. Our economy today is built on that history. Scotland has always been a land of strength, tradition and resilience. From our islands to our cities, our businesses and communities carry with us a spirit that has been forged through centuries of challenge and change.
The global economic system is undergoing a reset, with the International Monetary Fund warning of slow growth due to escalating tariffs and related policy uncertainty. Such economic instability causes anxiety.
Economic uncertainty is not good for anyone. I wrote to the Prime Minister recently about the impact of the energy profit levy and, today, Harbour Energy has announced that it will cut 250 onshore jobs in Aberdeen because of the United Kingdom Government’s
“ongoing punitive fiscal position and a challenging regulatory environment.”
Will the Deputy First Minister call on the UK Government to change its fiscal regime and save jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland?
I express my huge sympathy for those who face losing their job. As Kevin Stewart said, we are faced with the loss of several hundred onshore jobs, and we are willing to work with employers and the wider sector to look at how we can support the wider industry. We recognise Kevin Stewart’s point about the impact of the energy profit levy. We will always stand on the side of Scottish industry and Scottish jobs, and I am happy to explore with my UK Government counterparts what we can do to support jobs and the wider sector, because we understand that a just transition must involve a transition—we cannot abandon people as previous Prime Ministers have done.
Although some of the economic instability is out of our control, how far Scotland is buffeted will depend on how we confront the global challenges. As we look to the end of this parliamentary session and beyond, our mission is clear: we must build a stronger, fairer and greener economy that works for every business and every community, from the edge of the Borders to the tip of the Highlands and Islands.
Lifting incomes is the bridge between tackling poverty and growing the economy so that people, communities and the nation as a whole can thrive. We raise incomes by growing the economy from the ground up, investing in people and jobs, supporting enterprise and trade, attracting investment and sharing success across the whole of Scotland.
Over the past two years, Scotland has had the lowest wage growth of any region or nation in the United Kingdom. The Deputy First Minister talks about increasing incomes and security, but what in the programme for government will address that?
I am intrigued as to which figures Paul O’Kane is using, because, in March, Scotland’s claimant count—the unemployment rate—was 3.7 per cent, which was lower than the UK rate of 4.6 per cent, and our overall economy grew more quickly than the UK economy did last year. When I look at the policies and initiatives that are in place in Scotland, which are driven not least by our enterprise agencies, I see significant and strong growth.
At lunch time today, I chaired the cross-party group on the wood panel industry, which supports the wood panel products sector. Several industry leaders were there, who very much hope to meet the First Minister shortly to discuss the enormous, positive potential of that sector across the whole of the economy—indeed, the sector contributes around £200,000 per annum gross value added per person in employment. As the Deputy First Minister will know, West Fraser has received some of the largest investments.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that there is enormous potential to support that industry? Does she and the First Minister support having a full, Government-led debate to allow us all to work together to explore how we can unlock that enormous potential for Scotland?
I am very supportive of the sector and, indeed, have had the great pleasure of visiting West Fraser and seeing the expansion in which it has invested. It is one of our finest examples of a brilliant-quality Scottish resource, which, through supporting the manufacturing sector and, ultimately, building houses, has a triple impact on the economy. I am happy to continue to engage with the sector, and the First Minister just told me that he had bumped into and had a very constructive conversation with sector representatives today.
Economic growth is like turning the distillery’s water on. It lets fresh energy, jobs and innovation flow into the heart of our communities. However, growth alone is not enough, because running a distillery is not only about letting the water flow—it is about care, concentration and co-ordination to ensure that all parts of the process work together. As we grow our economy, we must do it in a way that ensures that every business, community, individual, family and child have the chance to contribute to and benefit from that growth.
Our aim is simple: we want to build a fair and inclusive economy, increase employment and raise wages. One example thereof is the expansion of the fairer futures partnerships, which enable partners to help more families to access the support that they need, where and when they need it, and to maximise incomes and access to sustained employment or education opportunities. That is why we are investing more than £40 million in parental employability support in every local authority area, to tailor employability services to parents.
We want to improve inclusive recruitment practices, including flexible working and support for disabled employees. Although the Government will continue to create opportunities and roll out support for disabled people, such as our recent national roll-out of the pension age disability payment, we continue to call on the UK Government to immediately drop its cruel benefit cuts, which target the most vulnerable in our communities. The Scottish Government is unashamedly investing in the communities that the Labour Government seeks to penalise. That is why we have committed to supporting disabled people to move into sustainable employment through specialist employability support from summer 2025, across all 32 local authority areas, supporting closer working between employability provision and employers.
Will the Deputy First Minister therefore share my concern that a really successful programme for supporting disabled people into employment in Glasgow through the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living has not been able to have as many internships for disabled people in the national health service this year, as a result of what it has been told are recruitment freezes? What could the Deputy First Minister do with me to help to address that?
The example that the member has cited is precisely the kind of opportunity that we are supporting and are keen to continue to support. The employability support that I just outlined is very much focused on maximising the opportunities for disabled people. If the member shares more information with me, I will be happy to look at the specifics of the case—I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is already aware of it.
We are committed to helping hard-pressed families with the costs of childcare as well, because ensuring that people continue to get the right support and skills to flourish once they are in work is a key part of our plans for growth. This coming year, we will create even more funded breakfast, after-school and holiday club places for families who need them, through a £3 million bright start breakfasts fund and the expansion of the extra time programme. The new approach to national skills planning means that employers, colleges, universities and others come together to ensure that post-school provision becomes more responsive to our economy’s needs and priorities.
Will the Deputy First Minister take another intervention?
A really brief one.
In evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning on the Government’s plans for skills reform, Skills Development Scotland said that it believes that
“the timescales for current reform mean that any benefits or unintended consequences of the programme will not be understood for a decade.”
I disagree with that, because although we work to reform and future proof the system on a long-term basis, we are acting now to support more immediate skills needs. I am particularly pleased with some of the commitments in the programme for government, not least the £2 million for the Clyde maritime cluster, which is specifically designed to support people who are furthest from the job market into skilled employment. We are working with the private sector on that.
The country of Adam Smith has always looked outwards—when our economy grows, we do not just create wealth; we export our creativity and turn our global connections into local opportunity. Scotland boasts many global economic strengths, such as in renewable energy, its world leading financial services sector, whisky exports, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and tech innovation.
Our global image blends rich culture and heritage, innovation, resilience, natural beauty, and top-class food and drink, attracting millions of tourists, investors and international connections to Scotland—I am immensely proud of what our businesses and communities achieve in this country.
As well as trading outwards, we welcome investment inwards. We understand that we will not achieve our ambitions for growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency, reducing child poverty or improving public services without investment flowing into Scotland. We are already a prime destination for capital investment. For multiple years in a row, we have continued to be the most attractive place in the UK for inward investment outside London and the south-east. In other words, investors have confidence in the Scottish economy.
Last month, I was at Glasgow airport welcoming the £1.5 billion investment that is being made by PSP Investments Ltd and AviAlliance into AGS Airports Ltd. We are taking an investor-friendly approach to being a globally competitive destination by engaging with priority investors alongside the Scottish National Investment Bank to send a clear signal that Scotland offers huge opportunities and the right conditions for investment. In the coming year, we will launch investScotland to showcase significant investment opportunities, building on the First Minister’s global offshore wind investment forum. We will also implement the recommendations of the housing investment task force.
We have a critical role in making it easier to support local domestic business by providing certainty and stability to taxpayers. We will provide further certainty and stability by supporting better engagement and robust business and regulatory impact assessments as well as by reaffirming our commitment to having no further divergence from UK Government income tax policy for the rest of this parliamentary session. That will ensure that the majority of Scottish taxpayers continue to pay less income tax than those in the rest of the UK.
The programme for government sets out a range of planning commitments, such as to reverse the decline in professional planners working in public authorities and to address delays through the planning hub to help tackle poverty through good new homes and making our communities more attractive and sustainable places to live and do business.
Our three enterprise agencies are cornerstones to our efforts to develop Scotland’s entrepreneurial strengths and boost innovation. The figures are remarkable. Last year alone, they supported the creation or safeguarding of more than 19,600 jobs and unlocked a record £2.3 billion of planned capital investment.
I will draw my comments to a close. We are very clear that our actions to support the economy are a means of tackling poverty and that those two things go hand in hand. We are proud of our strengths and of the progress that we are making on reducing poverty.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the actions outlined in the Programme for Government 2025-26 to grow the Scottish economy and eradicate child poverty; further recognises that these missions are inextricably linked, with a strong economy providing access to fair work opportunities and supporting investment in public services and ambitious climate and anti-poverty measures; notes that, over the year ahead, the actions within the Programme for Government will build on Scotland’s economic strengths to address the additional challenges the country faces from economic volatility, capturing the economic opportunities ahead to drive improvements in living standards, reduce child poverty and build a strong foundation for the future, to weather the global economic uncertainty; welcomes the Scottish Government’s continued focus on delivering action across the drivers of child poverty reduction, to increase earned incomes, reduce the costs of living and maximise incomes from social security and benefits in kind, and commits to working together to grow the economy, and deliver on the 2030 child poverty targets unanimously supported by the Scottish Parliament.
I advise members that there is no time in hand, so members will be required to stick to their speaking allocations.
I call Murdo Fraser to speak to and move amendment S6M-17437.4. Mr Fraser, you have up to nine minutes.
15:03
I start by reminding members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to the income that I derive from property rental and my connection with the Scotch Whisky Association.
The programme for government that was announced yesterday was a real opportunity for the Scottish Government to put growth back at the heart of the political agenda. For years, in coalition with the anti-growth Green Party, it did not even want to mention the subject. Fortunately, it is now at least prepared to talk about growth, although there is a huge mismatch between the rhetoric and the actual delivery. We should all agree that growth is important. Growth is what delivers the ability to solve the nation’s problems. It creates wealth, it reduces poverty, it supports household incomes and it provides the tax revenues to fund the public services that we all rely on.
Will the member give way?
I will in a second.
We should all affirm that as a set of outcomes. At least, I hope that we would all affirm that—perhaps Mr Mason is about to disappoint me.
The member says that growth reduces poverty. Would he accept that that is not automatic and that we have to take action to move the wealth around?
We have to create the growth first; we have to create the wealth first. That needs to be the first priority. If we do not have the wealth, we cannot share it around.
However, the reality is that growth has been too slow both across the UK and in Scotland. In the latest month for which we have figures, which is February 2025, Scotland’s onshore gross domestic product is estimated to have fallen by 0.2 per cent. Overall, the UK economy grew in the same month by just 0.5 per cent. The output of 11 of 14 sectors of the Scottish economy fell, with the services sector shrinking overall by 0.6 per cent. Too many people of working age are not working, and we have a higher percentage of people who are economically inactive compared with the UK as a whole.
That poor economic output is reflected in collapsing levels of business confidence. Just last month, Scottish Chambers of Commerce published its quarterly economic indicator in conjunction with the Fraser of Allander Institute. It shows business confidence evaporating across key sectors, with sharp drops recorded for tourism, manufacturing and construction compared with the same period last year. Taxation is now the number 1 concern for Scottish businesses, overtaking inflation, and rising labour and energy costs continue to be major factors. Overall, it is a very worrying picture.
Kicking in just at the beginning of last month was the UK Labour Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, which is literally a tax on jobs.
I do not wish to pre-empt what the member will say, but does he agree that one of the primary problems with the hike in national insurance contributions is that the Labour Government has no mandate for it as it was not even in its manifesto?
I do not disagree at all with that point from the Deputy First Minister. If Labour had signalled in advance of the election what it was going to do, whether on national insurance, the farmers tax or cutting the winter fuel payments, people might have been happier to live with that, but none of that was promised in advance of the election. No wonder people are so angry.
It is no surprise that the growth forecasts for the UK economy have been substantially downgraded in the period since Labour came to power and since Rachel Reeves’s budget.
That said, we cannot exempt the Scottish National Party Government from criticism, as I am sure the Deputy First Minister would expect. At the business in the Parliament conference the week before last, there were questions about matters that are under the Scottish Government’s control, including taxation, business rates and the fact that Barnett consequentials from reductions in rates for hospitality, retail and leisure south of the border have not been passed on for three years in succession. We had questions about skills, apprenticeships and housing, which are all matters of interest to business and are all areas where economic growth is being held back, and all of them are in the devolved space.
On Friday, I spoke at a tourism conference where we heard from VisitScotland that, while international visitor numbers are doing well, there is a significant decline in the domestic market. That is at a time when the tourism sector is struggling with business rates, the national insurance increase, the regulation of short-term lets and, of course, the coming visitor levy.
The Scottish Government can make choices on the great majority of those things, but the choices that it has made so far have been to lump on additional regulation and taxation in sectors that are now struggling. That is not how we grow the economy. At the same time, previous SNP decisions on rent controls have resulted in the loss of what is estimated to be in excess of £3 billion of investment in the build-to-rent sector.
Will the member take an intervention?
I ask the cabinet secretary to let me make this point. I will then give way.
That means that, at a time when we have a housing emergency, which even the Scottish Government accepts, we are simply not building enough new houses to rent. That is a direct result of the choices that have been made by the Scottish Government.
Earlier, Murdo Fraser called my Scottish Green colleagues “anti-growth”, which is a highly pejorative term. Will he comment on members of the Conservative Party voting with the Greens to make rent controls easier during stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill yesterday? I am afraid that he is not up to date with what is happening in the rest of his party, because it has increased the chances of rent controls rather than decreasing them. That is exactly what happened yesterday.
Rent controls are an SNP Government policy; they are not supported by this party. We will not support the housing bill if rent controls are part of it. I give the cabinet secretary that absolute assurance, because the policy has driven away £3 billion of investment in Scotland—that £3 billion has gone elsewhere.
I looked forward to seeing whether the programme for government would signal a change of direction and whether the tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK would be addressed, given all the concern that we hear from industry about the difficulty that it presents in attracting skilled people to come here. I also thought that the programme for government might address the rates imbalance with Barnett consequentials not being passed on and that it might deal with the overregulation of business holding back sectors such as tourism. Sadly, I was disappointed.
What did we see instead? We saw a promise to publish an
“action and implementation plan based on an assessment of the regulatory controls which exist in key growth sectors”.
The SNP has been in power for 18 years, and it is talking about publishing more plans. What businesses need is action and not more bits of paper. There was also a promise to subject
“future Scottish Government regulation to scrutiny to ensure that its purpose, content and timing have regard to potential opportunities and impacts on business and investment”.
Will the member give way?
I am running out of time, so I ask my colleague to forgive me.
The Scottish Government has had 18 years to do that. Finally, it is waking up to the fact that its policies might be harming growth.
Yesterday, we heard from the First Minister about promoting international trade, which is very welcome. Remarkably, however, we heard nothing about yesterday’s real big news, which was the announcement that there is to be a free trade agreement between India and the United Kingdom. The Scotch Whisky Association described that as
“a once in a generation deal”.
I know that there are issues with some of the detail, but the previous UK Conservative Government worked hard to bring that together and it is good to see it being completed. It means that, for India, which is potentially the world’s largest whisky market, we will see a halving of the current 150 per cent tariff on Scotch whisky to 75 per cent, with a staged reduction down to 40 per cent over 10 years. That will be transformational for the industry, with the potential to increase income from Scotch whisky exports by £1 billion over five years and create 1,200 jobs across the UK.
That is tremendous news, so why have we heard nothing about it from the Scottish Government? Perhaps the reason is that it is being delivered only as a consequence of Brexit and our ability to make such agreements on our own outwith the EU. However, the First Minister would rather moan about Brexit than celebrate the opportunities that it brings for Scottish business.
What the Scottish Government should be delivering to help to promote growth is clear. It should address the overtaxation of business, address the excessive regulation, provide the support for skills and apprenticeship that businesses need and ensure that the infrastructure is there—with roads such as the A9 and rail and ferry networks—to support the economy. The programme for government is a missed opportunity for Scottish business. What we need to see is growth, but that is not what the Government is delivering. That is the point of our amendment.
I am very happy to move amendment S6M-17437.4, to leave out from first “the actions” to end and insert:
“that all good Scottish Government outcomes, including supporting household incomes, reducing poverty, creating wealth and funding public services, depend on delivering stronger economic growth; regrets that, despite the overriding importance of stronger economic growth, the Programme for Government 2025-26 fails to contain the policies needed to deliver it, and instead signals the continuation of the UK’s harshest tax regime on households and businesses, and fails to commit to the actions needed to deliver a growth-promoting regulatory and planning environment, and calls on the Scottish Government to adopt the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party’s common-sense proposals to grow the economy, including by reducing taxes on individuals and businesses and by improving the skills of the workforce.”
15:13
Listening to the Deputy First Minister open this debate and the debate yesterday and the First Minister’s statement, one would think that today was day 1 of a new Government. I am disappointed that the First Minister is not in his place, because I enjoy making him feel old, but some of us in the chamber had just left secondary school when he started delivering programmes for government. The reality is that what we have seen today is yet another attempt by the Scottish National Party Government to reinvent itself, but we have had 18 years of it, and we know that its record speaks for itself.
In today’s debate, we are focusing on the economic challenge. I recognise much of what the Deputy First Minister has said about international headwinds and the challenges faced by the UK and Scottish Governments, but the reality is that she always seems to want to point to UK policy and blame the UK Government for the circumstances in which the Scottish Government finds itself. Is it not the truth that Scotland lags behind the rest of the UK on 10 out of 13 productivity indicators, including business investment and business research and development spend? Is it not the truth that after 18 years, the Scottish National Party has built a low-growth, low-pay economy, and that all of Scotland is paying the price for that?
I am intervening in part to tell Paul O’Kane that he might have been leaving secondary school when the First Minister started delivering programmes for government, but I was still in secondary school.
Apart from that minor point, when it comes to productivity improvements, I am very happy to claim credit for the £1.89 billion of investment and the 16,700 jobs that have been delivered in the past year alone by Scottish Enterprise, because of our focused policies.
I in no way meant to make the Deputy First Minister feel old, because she certainly is not, but the reality is that she has experienced those 18 years and has supported her party through that time, so she must take some ownership of that.
Coming on to the subject of wages, I note that, when I intervened on the Deputy First Minister, she was unable to answer the point about Scotland having lower wage growth than the rest of the UK. That has to be faced up to; the figures are based on her Government’s figures, which show that wage growth here has not kept pace with that in the other nations and regions in the United Kingdom. There is serious concern on that front.
I do not disagree with this part of Paul O’Kane’s contribution, but does he accept that the UK Labour Government is making it that much more difficult to inspire growth with its national insurance increase, which is a tax on jobs, because it ensures that employers are not able to take on as many people as they would otherwise?
Ms Smith and I have debated this issue many times. She knows the inheritance that was faced by the UK Labour Government when we came to office, and she cannot get away from the appalling situation with the public finances that was left by her party.
The reality is that there is a cosy consensus between the SNP and the Conservatives on these and many other issues. The SNP is not willing to spell out how it would pay for the investments resulting from decisions made in the UK budget, or the £5 billion that was invested in the Scottish Government’s own budget—there are no answers from the SNP on that. Equally, it is clear that there is no plan from the Conservatives on how they would ensure stability and investment in public services here in Scotland.
We seek not only to debate the economy but to ensure that the economy has a strong underpinning so that we can invest in a more socially just and fairer Scotland. Those noble ambitions have been held by the Government for 18 years now, but there has been a lack of progress and achievement in that space. It is very telling that the Wise Group has noted its concerns about the structural problems with public services in Scotland. I appreciate that the Liberal Democrats cover much of that in their amendment, but it is worth referencing, because, too often, people experience services not as a safety net but as a maze. We have spent years trying to define and redefine poverty when, in truth, we know what needs to happen, and we learn by doing.
The Wise Group has spoken about investing in public sector reform, investing in services around people, investing in relationships and not just transactions and focusing on what works.
Given what he says, Paul O’Kane will, I hope, welcome the nearly £2 million that the Scottish Government recently invested in the Wise Group to assist in exactly that work, which it has been doing exceptionally well, and welcome the focus that the First Minister has put on whole-family support and the expansion of the fairer futures partnerships to do what Mr O’Kane talks about—public service reform.
Of course I welcome investment in things such as relational mentoring, which are extremely important, but the point that the Wise Group is trying to make is that, after 18 years of this Government, there are still serious challenges in how public services are delivered, in how we know who is in need of support and in how that support is pushed down into communities more widely.
The First Minister concluded his statement yesterday by saying that the Government would be centred on delivery and providing hope. We really have to ask ourselves what the Government has been doing for 18 years if only now, one year from an election, it is centred on delivery and focusing on hope.
One might forgive people for thinking that the hope and optimism that many felt in 2007 might now be realised and that, after all the reports, independent inquiries, working groups, pilots and consultations that the Government has put forward over that 18-year period, the type of radical reform that is required might finally be round the corner. However, I do not think that anyone will be holding their breath waiting for that reform to delivered. We know—because we have heard as much today, and in yesterday’s debate—about the litany of broken promises from the Government over the past 18 years when it comes to tackling the challenges that exist in our NHS and in education, and delivering a social security system that works.
This programme for government—the last one before an election—is devoid of change and policies that would make a tangible difference on the issues that have been raised by the Wise Group and many others. There are no new promises, and no clear actions to end what has become a managed decline. If the SNP had the ideas to fix the crisis in our NHS and the housing emergency, and to raise attainment and stop violence in schools, it would have delivered those policies by now.
It is clear that the SNP Government has lost its way, and its own incompetence has cost the people of Scotland dearly. We are faced with that reality, as the people of Scotland will be in 12 months’ time. It is clear that we can no longer have sticking-plaster solutions—we need a new direction for Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-17437.2, to leave out from first “recognises” to end and insert:
“believes that, after 18 years, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has taken Scotland in the wrong direction and made every institution in Scotland weaker, with almost one in six people in Scotland on an NHS waiting list, falling attainment, and thousands stuck in poverty or living in inadequate housing or on the streets; regrets that the SNP administration’s failure to use the levers that it has to meet statutory child poverty targets, tackle the housing crisis, reduce violence in schools, provide child and adolescent mental health services when young people need them, and prioritise skills development is denying young people a more prosperous and stable future; recognises that the SNP administration has had no industrial strategy or plan for skills, building a low-growth economy and delivering the lowest wage growth of any region or nation in the UK over the last two years; believes that this economic underperformance has had negative implications for public services and the living standards of families and working people, and that the Programme for Government lacks the scale of action needed to make Scotland’s economy work for people across Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to prioritise skills and regional economic development, reform Scotland’s enterprise agencies and cut waste, harness the power of technology to help business grow, and ensure that people get the support that they need to find secure work.”
I call Lorna Slater to speak to and move amendment S6M-17437.3.
15:20
We all accept that we are living in uncertain times, from Donald Trump to war in Europe, Palestine and now potentially Kashmir—and, looking ahead, to the impacts of climate change. The increase in armed conflict is a glimpse of things to come as the breakdown of our climate progresses, the earth’s resources become scarcer and our planet heats up.
The Scottish Government cannot be timid in its response to the challenges that we face. We are facing profound threats, and we need profound answers. It is not enough to try to do the same thing faster with ever-reducing resources. Business as usual is not only alienating a significant proportion of our society and driving them into the arms of the far right; it is not reducing emissions fast enough to prevent the collapse of our environment.
It is possible to build a fairer and greener Scotland, and we need a brave and bold Government to do so. Greener means rapidly reducing emissions, in line with the advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, and restoring our depleted nature. Fairer means redistributing wealth and opportunity so that homes are affordable and work pays fair wages, and ensuring that our social security net allows everyone to live with dignity. It means implementing practical measures to get money back into people’s pockets and to reduce poverty.
There are some good examples of those policies in the programme for government, including a permanent end to peak rail fares, a policy that was first brought in by the Scottish Greens in October 2023. There are references to key budget commitments that were also won by the Scottish Greens, such as the £2 bus fare cap pilot, the free bus travel pilot for people seeking asylum and the increased roll-out of free school meals in eight local authority areas for Scottish child payment recipients from secondary 1 through to secondary 3.
The roll-out of the offshore wind skills programme and the continuation of the nature restoration fund for another year are also to be welcomed, and I am pleased to see a recommitment to a 20mph speed limit as the default by the end of 2025-26. It will make our towns and cities safer for children, pedestrians and cyclists, and will also reduce pollution. Moreover, progress towards the devolution of parking fines to local authorities, and allowing local authorities to increase council tax on second homes, are welcome, if somewhat overdue, developments.
However, I see too many backward steps on progressive policy. The Government does not always seem to be willing to do the hard things that we need to do to build a fairer, greener Scotland. We need those things now—because, to be frank, we are running out of tomorrows. It would have been good to see some progress on tackling the high levels of wealth inequality that we see entrenched in Scotland, and a recognition that income inequality has surged in recent years.
Scotland is unfair for so many people, and the Scottish Government could do more to make it fairer—for example, with greater ambition to deliver warmer homes and cheaper energy bills, and with rent controls to end rip-off rents and protect renters. We need an ambitious plan to tax wealth in Scotland effectively and reinvest it in public services for communities. We need cheaper bus fares—and, indeed, cheaper fares across all public transport. Capped bus fares would go a long way towards delivering that.
I am particularly disappointed that the car kilometre reduction target has been scrapped. The target could have been met, but the Scottish Government was never bothered about putting a plan in place to follow through and make the effort to meet it. We cannot get people out of their cars when buses remain unreliable or unavailable, and trains remain so expensive.
The watering down of our ambitions to make homes cheaper and cleaner to heat will make it impossible to meet our 2045 net zero target, unless we make up the difference in other sectors. Will the Scottish Government really go that much further and faster on emissions reduction in agriculture and transport to make up the difference from what it is not going to achieve in housing?
With the world and climate in crisis, people across Scotland want reassurance that the Government is still on their side, and that cannot come from broken promises and scrapped commitments. From ditching plans to ban so-called conversion therapy and introduce the long-awaited misogyny bill, to rolling back on addressing climate action, this is not the programme for government that Scotland needs. The Scottish Government can do better than that, and the Scottish Greens will keep pushing it to do so.
I move amendment S6M-17437.3, to, leave out from first “to grow” to end and insert:
“could have been an opportunity for bold, decisive action towards building a more equal, healthier and greener Scotland with an economy that works for people and planet; recognises the substantial changes to Scotland’s transport, industry, land use and homes and buildings systems that are required to meet the challenges of the climate emergency, as described by the UK Climate Change Committee; further recognises the need for action to create well-paid, skilled jobs in growing low-carbon industries; believes that tackling poverty requires not only strong, resilient economies that provide access to fair work opportunities and support investment in public services, but also measures that secure the human rights of all citizens, from affordable, accessible housing and education to a social security system based on care and compassion; regrets the weakening of commitments to tackle climate change and the housing emergency, such as the watering down of the proposed Heat in Buildings Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill; expresses its dismay that the proposed Bills to tackle misogyny and end conversion practices have been dropped from this Programme for Government, and calls on the Scottish Government to reconsider its position on human rights and equalities legislation and urgently produce an ambitious plan to tax wealth more effectively in Scotland to ensure appropriate investment in public services, support communities and build a fairer Scotland.”
15:26
I will talk about two very different but vital strategies for how we can tackle poverty. My opening speech will focus on economic growth, which others have touched on, whereas my closing speech will focus more on the wider public sector reform that is needed to target poverty.
When I read the Government’s motion, I was disappointed to say the least because, although it talks about reducing child poverty, the Government does not say how it is going to do that. The motion talks about improving living standards, but it does not mention Scotland’s growing housing emergency and crisis. It talks about growing the economy, but it does not detail how it is going to do that.
In the Government’s 168-word motion, there is no mention of the crisis in Scotland’s national health service, NHS waiting times, missed targets in accident and emergency departments and the postcode lottery for access to dental care. Nothing in the motion talks about the growing attainment gap, which has gone from 3.7 per cent to 4.3 per cent in just a year. Nothing talks about falling police numbers, when we have lost more than 1,000 police officers since Police Scotland was created; and there is nothing about infrastructure, such as the Government’s failure to dual the A9. Nothing in the motion talks about how the Government will tackle our drug and alcohol deaths crisis, although alcohol deaths are at a 15-year high and Scotland’s drug deaths rate is still the highest in Europe. There is nothing in the motion about any of that.
That does not surprise me, but it all matters because, as I will touch on, our constituents are most likely to interact with the Scottish Government’s policies in their public service interactions. Those are the touch points that can help them to improve their lives and to live healthier, happier, safer and more prosperous lives. On the Scottish Government’s defining mission of eradicating poverty and, particularly, child poverty, which the First Minister said is his personal career-defining mission, I am not exactly filled with confidence.
The member mentioned the A9. Does he agree that, since the capital budget is now £7 billion annually over the next 10 years, and since the combined plans for the A9, the A96 and the Nairn bypass would involve just over half of that, there is more than enough money in the capital budget to fund the dualling of the A9 and the Nairn bypass?
I could not agree more. That should have been done years ago. The member knows my position on that and I am sure that he agrees with it. He is in the same political party as members on the Government front bench, so perhaps he could put as much pressure as he can on the Government to fulfil that obligation, because infrastructure is absolutely key. Digital, road and transport infrastructure is all necessary for economic growth.
Solving a systemic problem such as child poverty is an admirable ambition. I have long held the belief—mostly born out of life experience, rather than political ideology—that economic growth and opportunity are the key routes out of poverty. We need to grow our economy by far more than just 1 per cent per year. Whether that is a couple of percentage points either side of the UK average is irrelevant, because the economy needs to be growing by double-digit figures if we are to have the sort of growth in the tax base that we need to improve public services.
We need three things to happen—we need more businesses, more jobs and better wage growth. All three must happen; success in just one will not suffice. It is no coincidence that the three Opposition amendments stress the importance of economic growth as part of the national mission.
It is also my view that the programme for government should have defined how the Government will advance—not just grow—the Scottish economy, how we will tackle the skill shortages that we all know exist in many sectors and how the Government will invest in the industries of the future. It is all very well name dropping life sciences, precision manufacturing, aerospace and renewables, but that is not the same as doing something about growing them and attracting investment into the country. We know that those industries are our unique selling points. They have business leaders who say to us that they want the Government to help, not hinder, their growth.
Not everyone will want to go into those industries of the future—I understand that. Many young people—in particular, those from deprived communities—may not see a route or a path to them. However, those people still deserve life chances. On the other side of the coin, how can someone become a barber, a plumber, an electrician or a welder if the training is not there or if there are no large employers in their region to attract apprentices? In the economy debate that we had last week, I pointed out that more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in Inverclyde. How will that help to eradicate child poverty?
In my closing speech, I will talk a little more about some of the public sector reform that was mentioned by Paul O’Kane and is documented by the Wise Group. There are some really interesting points in that, which we should be talking about. However, I do not think that we can fully eradicate child poverty in Scotland until we talk about the economic growth that is required to fund the tackling of it. That includes investing in new and emerging industries and markets, developing our workforce—I cannot stress that enough—as well as investing in digital, transport and infrastructure and, of course, building more houses, which is another point in my amendment. We absolutely need more affordable, safe, clean and warm houses in Scotland. It is an absolute shame to the Government that 10,000 people live in temporary accommodation in modern-day Scotland. That has to be a focus, but it is not in the motion either. It is for that reason that we will not support the Government’s motion. I urge members to support my amendment.
I move amendment S6M-17437.1, to insert at end:
“; notes that, whilst the Programme for Government 2025-26 contains plans and policies to eradicate child poverty, the Scottish Government has already missed the interim child poverty targets of less than 18% of children living in relative poverty and less than 14% living in absolute poverty by 2023-24; believes that action is also required on Scotland’s housing and planning systems in order to not only help the economy grow and encourage investment, but also to ensure that everyone has a safe, warm place to call home, particularly given that an estimated 10,360 children and their families are living in temporary accommodation in Scotland; understands that, whilst there are wider economic challenges both domestically and internationally, there remains concern that the work and reform that may be required to eradicate intergenerational poverty is not taking place at the necessary pace, as noted by The Wise Group, and is further concerned that, despite the actions announced in the Programme for Government 2025-26, these will not be enough to drive the economic growth required and the 2030 child poverty targets, of less than 10% of children living in relative poverty, will be missed.”
We move to the open debate.
15:32
I have heard from Opposition members the false claim that Scotland has the highest income tax in the UK. In fact, most here pay less than in England, and the same is true of council tax, which is some 30 per cent lower here.
Will Christine Grahame give way?
I will, in a moment.
The elephant in the room is the hike in employer national insurance. That tax on jobs, which one employer estimated would cost an extra £400,000 per annum on his wage bill, will also cost jobs. The Office for Budget Responsibility has predicted that 60 per cent of those increased costs will be passed to consumers.
The impact on the voluntary sector is also devastating. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates an additional cost to the sector of £75 million. If we add in winter fuel allowance cuts and farm inheritance tax, which threatens the very basis of our food sustainability—none of which was in Labour’s manifesto—no wonder Labour had a kicking in the recent council elections.
To go back to what the Scottish taxpayer gets for their money, Murdo Fraser can take it as read that I know and recognise that we need a thriving economy to fund social justice, and that will be my focus. As my old history teacher, Tar Macadam, used to say, what better way to assess than by comparing and contrasting? In this instance, I will compare and contrast Scotland under the SNP with England under the Tories and now Labour.
I will give examples. University tuition is free in Scotland; in England, it is £9,535 per annum, and students have after three years a debt of around £28,000 just for fees.
Contrast the delivery in Scotland of 1,140 hours of childcare for all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds with England, where, broadly, provision is only for all three and four-year-olds, for 570 hours.
Keeping 40,000 children out of poverty by providing the Scottish child payment at £27.15 per week for every child under 16 in a qualifying household can be contrasted with an absence of child payment under UK Labour and, instead, the punitive and disgraceful two-child benefit cap.
For the older generation, all pensioners in Scotland will receive at least £100 in winter fuel payment; those who receive the UK-run pension credit will get £300. If we contrast that with England, we see that only those on pension credit get anything, and the majority are left out in the cold.
We are investing in a fairer social security system and helping people into work, and we have 16 more benefits than are available in England. By contrast, the Labour Government is intent on restricting disability payments. It euphemistically says that that is about
“re-evaluating the personal independence payment eligibility criteria”—
that is cuts to you and me.
Here, we are providing free bus travel for 2.3 million people, including older and disabled people and all children and young people under 22. In England, free bus travel is available only for those with certain disabilities or on reaching state pension age, which is currently 66; in Scotland, people get their bus pass at 60.
Prescriptions here are free, and eye examinations are free for everyone, every two years. Prescription charges in England are £9.90 per item. In England, eye tests are free, but only for certain groups—for people who are under 16 or aged 60 or over, or who have specific medical conditions.
We are reducing the cost of the school day for families through free school meals for pupils in primary 1 to P5. In England, free meals are only for pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2.
The majority of Scottish taxpayers pay less tax than those in England, and we provide a compassionate and fair distribution of that tax.
I very much endorse the Scottish Government’s statement that it has
“targeted engagement with investors to secure investments from our new National Project Pipeline”,
which is a bit of official gobbledegook, but I hope that that means research and development. We have missed out on that in Scotland, so I want to hear more about the new proof of concept fund and an improved system of grants to increase the scale and quality of the Scottish start-up ecosystem. For Scotland, while tied to the UK, there has been a lack of vision and investment in manufacturing and in universities.
In a previous debate—I am apparently in a compare-and-contrast mode—I noted how Taiwan, with little or no natural resources, unlike energy-rich and food-rich Scotland, invests in research and development and protects intellectual property and patents internationally, which is essential in this fast-moving world.
For me, comparing and contrasting demonstrates without a scintilla of doubt the benefits, even with the constrictions of devolution, of living in Scotland under this SNP Government, but think how much more we could achieve with full economic independence.
15:37
It is always a pleasure to follow Christine Grahame in a debate. I would have intervened on her if there had been time, because she said that we are investing in social security to help people to get back into work. I have asked Social Security Scotland on more than one occasion how many people have come off social security because they have been helped back into work, but it does not keep any measurement of that. If that is genuinely an objective of Social Security Scotland, it is not even measuring it.
I was going to intervene on my friend Murdo Fraser to say that in the programme for government, which is supposed to be about economic growth, the word “productivity” appears but once. The key to economic growth is productivity, but there is nothing to be said about that in the programme for government.
I am ambitious for Scotland, but on the idea that we are going to boast that more than half of our fellow citizens are in an income bracket of £27,500 or less, I say that we should be energised by an attempt to see that statistic change. We should not boast about it like the SNP does.
The programme for government is not a programme and it is certainly not about joined-up government. It is just platitudes and a checklist of things that will not happen, because this SNP Government has no ambition for our country. It is tired, thin on ideas, thin on talent—my goodness, members should see the list of candidates who are hoping to come here next year—and thinner still on competence. After 18 years, the SNP is out of energy and out of answers. It dresses up delay as consultation and presents indecision as a strategy. The SNP is slick on spin, but behind it all, like the wizard of Oz, there is nothing—there is a vacuum where action should be.
We always need to remember that it is the public who will vote. I am sure that the member would have enjoyed—as I did today—looking at the current poll numbers. The public are clearly predicted to vote with their feet by voting to give the SNP the largest number of MSPs by a country mile, unlike his own party.
I remind members about electioneering in the chamber.
That was a fantastic display of hubris from Michelle Thomson. Let us see what happens when they open the ballot boxes and count the votes.
This is a Government that is clinging to office, not one that is capable of delivering for the people of Scotland. It is a case of another year and another plan—and yet another plan—which is all kicking the can down the road. There is another bunch of summits, and there are more task forces and reviews. The SNP cannot govern, so it hides—as it has always done—behind process. However, Scotland cannot afford to wait. If this programme for government really is about economic growth, it fails on that fundamental test, because economic growth has not been put at its heart.
Every good outcome that the Parliament wants to see—lower poverty, better public services and greater social justice—depends on a growing economy, because without growth there are no resources and there is no hope. Economic growth does not come from press releases or speeches, and it certainly does not come from increasing the burdens of taxation; it comes from enterprise, vision and determination, and from people who take risks, build businesses, create jobs and contribute to the tax base.
The Deputy First Minister used to love to talk about broadening the tax base. At one point, in the not-so-distant past, she was someone who understood that the burden of tax, as it stands in Scotland, is a massive disincentive to the people who must take risks, build businesses and create jobs to provide economic growth.
What would the member say to the 250 people who are at risk of losing their jobs right now at Harbour Energy because of the energy profit levy that his party’s Government introduced?
I think that it is well recorded what I thought about the excess profits levy—or whatever it is called—that the Labour Government has managed to increase the burden of while reducing all the investment incentives. It is a disgrace. It is a Labour Government that—as is typical of Labour Governments—has no idea how to grow the economy. All it knows how to do is grow indebtedness and the levels of tax and to boost inflation. Critically, Labour Governments always know how to increase unemployment, and that is what Labour is doing with its tax on jobs.
I will get back to the SNP. I am running out of time—rather sadly, because I have much more to say. However, time being what it is in this Parliament, there is no time for proper debates. I would love to have given way for more hubris from Michelle Thomson, for example.
I will simply say that after 18 years of failure and broken promises—my goodness, those parties know about broken promises. [Interruption.] Oh, they absolutely do know about that. They are blame shifters and people who hide behind excuses. Scotland can do better, which is captured well in Murdo Fraser’s amendment. This is a country that is crying out for leadership that delivers and believes in enterprise, rewards hard work and empowers every person to fulfil their potential.
You need to conclude.
It is time to turn the page on 18 wasted years of nationalist drift and get to work building a stronger, more dynamic country where real opportunity is open to all.
I remind members that there is time for interventions; they simply need to be included in the member’s speaking allocations. What there is not time for is electioneering.
15:44
I will take my time to get up, because, according to Mr Kerr, I have no energy left. I have as much energy now as I had the day that I came in here. I am here for one reason: to help the people of Paisley and ensure that they get the chance for Scotland to be an independent country. That will keep me energised every day that I come into the chamber and in every debate.
The First Minister spoke earlier today. I could not attend—I was using some of all the energy that I have in the Education, Children and Young People Committee, where other members and I dealt with all the business that we have there.
The First Minister promises hope and delivery, which is the important part of the debate. The programme for government is based on what we have been delivering on over the years. However, in difficult times, people need certainty. Yes, Palestine has been flattened, there is a war in Ukraine and we hear on television non-stop about the rise of the right across the world, but the SNP is talking about talking with people. I will stand by any SNP member who will talk with the people of Scotland, as opposed to talking at them, which is what we hear today from the Opposition parties. They go down the same old tired attack lines. Frankly, I am sick of it and the public are sick of it. It is now time for us to talk with the public as we move towards next year’s election. I cannot wait for that, because it is an important one for all of us. I am quite happy to stand in front of the people of Paisley on my record and that of the SNP Government.
As everyone has said, economic growth is an important part of the solution to building a better tomorrow. It is not the only tool, but it is a very important one. I will look at what is going on in Paisley and the surrounding district—that is Greater Paisley to me and Renfrewshire to other members—and the can-do attitude there.
We have seen record levels of investment in Renfrewshire, with jobs in low-carbon tech and manufacturing. Those are real jobs for real families and will ensure them a better future.
On the border between Paisley and Renfrew—I am always careful not to say that the Paisley borders are too expansionist; Renfrew might be a wee toon, but the people are game—we have Scotland’s advanced manufacturing innovation district. That 52-hectare site, which is next to Glasgow airport, is a collaboration project that is led by Renfrewshire Council and supported by the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise. The development is projected to create 6,000 jobs and boost Scotland’s manufacturing sector by £535 million, with a plethora of jobs in a plethora of sectors.
There is a positivity about Paisley’s historic High Street. That is not just to do with the sound of folk nipping to the local Subway for a cheeky wee sub; it is because of the promise of culture, tourism and new enterprise. That is thanks to the Scottish Government’s commitment to regeneration and innovation.
Renfrewshire Council and Scottish Government funding is changing how we look at our high streets. The Paisley museum, which at the very top of the High Street, has had a £45 million investment that will increase footfall there when it opens. That is funded through a plethora of sources, one of which is the Scottish Government. That is exactly the can-do attitude that I am talking about.
The Paisley central library, which is also on the High Street, is not just lending books but bringing people together as a successful community hub. The Scottish Government provided £1.5 million of that £7 million project.
Right at the heart of the town is the George A Clark town hall—that was its Sunday name, Presiding Officer, when it was opened 135 years ago, but we just call it Paisley toon hall. A £22 million investment by Renfrewshire Council has brought our grand old town hall to the 21st century, ensuring that people can go to events and come to the heart of the centre of the universe in Paisley.
However, we cannot stop there. All that investment is fantastic, and we need to bring more people to our town centre, but we must continue to look to the future. We have two shopping malls in the town, one of which is successful and one of which is less so. We need to take that investment further, invest in more town centre housing and look at some of the projects that are being developed as we speak. If we learn anything from the past, it is that we never finish with the work of regeneration—we just need to continue it.
George Adam is extolling the virtues of Paisley, as we would expect, but will he say anything about the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley—a hospital that is known to him and me—which has suffered serious downgrades over the past 18 years under this Government, including the closure of its children’s ward, and about continual threats to other services in Paisley? Will he say anything about that, and will he do anything to defend it?
The people of Paisley do not want to hear the same tired old attack lines. We hear constantly from the Opposition that the NHS is on its knees, which is not the case. If the member talks to constituents in Paisley, they will tell him that. Incidentally, as we are talking about the economy, I point out that the NHS is one of the biggest employers in the area.
The Labour Party can continue having a go at the people of Paisley and my constituents, but I, for one, will always stand up for them.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am coming to the end of my time, which is unfortunate.
We have had the Tories crashing the economy with the Truss budget, and Labour shrugging and signing up to the Tory spending limits, with the Scottish Government left to pick up the pieces again. Even now, after everything, those parties cling to their broken promises and broken rules while the people of Paisley pay the price through rising food costs and energy bills and stretched public services.
Let us be blunt: Westminster does not work for Scotland—it is not even pretending any more. That is why independence is not a slogan; it is a necessity. It gives us the power to build a fairer economy, to end poverty and to take decisions about Scotland in Scotland.
15:50
The First Minister tells us that the programme for government is about building Scotland’s best future but, after 18 years of the SNP Government, Scotland’s young people are still waiting for their future to begin. They were told that education was the top priority but, instead of opportunity, they have been handed broken promises, over and over again. The result is that 84,000 young people in Scotland are not in training, education or employment. Earlier, I intervened on the Deputy First Minister to ask about the Government’s skills agency’s view on the SNP’s plans to fix the issues on training and skills. In short, that agency’s view was that it fears that the plans are not enough and are unlikely to effect change for 10 years.
In yesterday’s programme for government statement, the First Minister spoke of returning to “the ABC of education”. I would like to use my time to test the Government further on that, because I believe that education is fundamental to building a strong foundation for the future. The First Minister said that A is for attainment and attendance, yet more young people than ever before are leaving school with no qualifications, the attainment gap at higher level is growing and the most disadvantaged young people are falling further behind. All the while, attendance is falling. However, instead of bold action to address all that, all that we get is a campaign on attendance and sticking plasters. There is nothing that recognises the whole-scale systemic change that is needed to get young people back to school.
There is nothing of that scale on the B that the First Minister spoke about either—behaviour. Violence in classrooms is rising and misogynistic abuse is growing. The Government’s new action plan on that has not even got as far as to define the problem, let alone solve it. Meanwhile, staff are burning out and children are suffering in silence. Finally, the First Minister said that C is for curriculum. However, what we have seen is narrowing subject choice, underresourced vocational routes and reform that has been delayed, diluted and discredited. The Government’s announcements yesterday on rationalising qualifications have only added confusion and mistrust.
That brings me to a letter that the First Minister did not offer yesterday: D for delivery. Let us look at delivery on skills. Instead of delivering the skills that we need, the Government has presided over skills gaps in key areas of the economy. Colleges are pivotal to that. The Government calls them anchor institutions, yet decisions that the SNP has taken have put colleges in crisis. Staffing has fallen by 28 per cent since 2007, enrolments dropped by 62,000 last year alone and courses are being cut. That is not renewal; it is managed decline or, worse, as one college leader has said, it is unmanaged decline. We hear of pilot projects for offshore wind and engineering, but there is nothing—no vision—to fix the college sector. All of that leaves thousands of young people from the poorest backgrounds and care-experienced young people not in education, employment or training.
Today, the Deputy First Minister mentioned childcare. The Government promised transformational expansion but, instead, costs for under-threes in Scotland remain higher than the average in the UK. The current provision, which is a pilot in six communities, falls short; it is a national policy reduced to a postcode lottery. Parents of children with additional support needs struggle to access funded childcare at all.
On ASN, the Government’s approach and delivery have been branded intolerable. One in three pupils now has an additional support need, and a report out today says that the figure in Glasgow is as high as half of all pupils, yet the number of specialist teachers has plummeted. Teacher unions and third sector organisations have been warning of a crisis in ASN for years, and parents are at the end of their tether. Children are being denied support. They are being moved off NHS waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services and diverted to provision that is not NHS or statutory—they are left in limbo. All the while, schools are being left to pick up the pieces.
The First Minister says that the programme for government is about fairness, but let me be clear: there is no fairness without opportunity, and there is no opportunity without investment in education, skills and the people who our children become.
Once, Scotland’s young people had access to a world-class education system. Now, they are subject to a patchwork of pilot schemes, hollowed-out colleges, missed targets and rebrands instead of reforms. The SNP used to say, “Judge us on this.” Well, 18 years on, the attainment gap is not closing, the system is not improving and opportunities are being squandered.
I will tell you which people pay the price for the SNP’s failure: the pupil who is sitting in a crowded classroom without a support teacher, the teenager who is leaving school with no qualifications or next steps and the young adult who is being turned away from college because the course has been cut. They are not statistics; their lives are shaped by political choices. The programme for government could have been a turning point away from all that; it could have been a moment of honesty and a plan for recovery. Instead, it is more of the same: delay dressed up as delivery and slogans in place of solutions.
Scotland’s young people are ambitious, capable and brimming with potential. That is why Scottish Labour is clear that this cannot go on. The solutions have been proposed time and again yet, year after year, ministers choose to step back instead of step up. Education is the central task of Government, because how we support young people today will decide what kind of Scotland we wake up to tomorrow.
That is why Scottish Labour would take a new direction in education. We would build a system that inspires young people to learn, be curious and progress. It would be a system that supports teachers to teach and learners to learn by rebuilding support for young people, including in the health and care system. It would be a system that prepares young people with the skills that they need for tomorrow’s world of work. Most of all, a new direction for education is one that broadens horizons and smashes the glass, class and stepped ceilings that are in the way of opportunity being spread for all.
If Scotland is to have the best future, we must start by investing in all the people who will shape it. We must act now—not with delay or deflection but with determination. That is what young people in Scotland deserve.
15:57
I welcome the programme for government and, in particular—perhaps this is no surprise—the actions that will support growth in the economy.
Having recently returned from Alberta, I am more convinced than ever that Scotland needs more powers and flexibility than is available under the current devolution arrangements. I want Scotland to be a normal independent country but, if this institution is to be a devolved legislature, can it please have the same powers as the Legislative Assembly of Alberta? The province retains all the tax take from oil and gas and has unlimited borrowing powers. It is ridiculous to pretend that Scotland, with its very restrictive regime—particularly around capital borrowing—can fully address the great challenges that are ahead.
Will Michelle Thomson take an intervention?
Will Michelle Thomson give way?
I will take Jamie Greene’s intervention, as he asked first.
Income tax is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but that responsibility comes with risk. It has resulted in £3.3 billion of additional tax being raised due to tax divergence with the rest of the UK, yet only £600 million has gone to the Scottish budget in net terms due to a slower economic performance. Michelle Thomson might want the powers, but she has to accept the responsibility as well.
I appreciate that Jamie Greene is new in post and will still be getting his head around exactly how the fiscal framework works. What he describes is a function of the fiscal framework.
I agree with the First Minister, who, in yesterday’s statement, said:
“Tariffs will impact directly on many Scottish exporters to the United States, while a US recession and a global trade war will have direct and indirect effects on almost every sector of our economy.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; c 13.]
That is not likely to be fixed by a bilateral trade deal between the US and UK, and the mood music on a trade deal with the US is not good. I agree with the recent review of the UK trade policy observatory, which is a joint initiative between the University of Sussex and Chatham house, that
“a quick and economically significant outcome to US–UK trade negotiations seems unlikely.”
The Trump Administration has issued stringent guidelines to its negotiators as it moves away from multilateral to bilateral deals. It is quite clear that its aim is to increase US exports and decrease imports.
Another point that worries me is that alignment with US standards would present a specific danger to Scottish products. It would mean greater divergence with the EU, and it could also compromise our own standards—not only those in agriculture—creating a toxic mixture for Scotland’s domestic and export businesses.
Last week, during question time, I called for a review of our export strategy in the light of international challenges. I am therefore pleased to note the new six-point export plan to enable Scottish exporters to diversify and grow markets. In the past, I have written about the need to fully utilise our Scottish business diaspora, and I look forward to continued engagement with it as part of that export strategy.
As someone who has regularly called for greater recognition of and support for women in business, innovation and entrepreneurship, I was pleased to note that that was recognised by the First Minister and is, doubtless, supported by the Deputy First Minister, who shares my passion in that area. The First Minister talked about the launch of a new proof of concept fund, with a focus on supporting the commercialisation of research projects with significant economic potential, including action to transform the number of women who start and scale up businesses. In pursuing the drive for the commercialisation of research projects, with which I completely agree, we also need to review the gaps across Scotland’s financial sector architecture—arguably, the lack of our own stock exchange, for example—and we must do everything in our power to create a fully supportive economic environment for business.
Economic growth must be supported not only by the Government but by business. We know that we need to nurture an environment of profitable businesses that are given the confidence to invest in the future.
Does Michelle Thomson accept that part of that involves ensuring that there is much better co-operation between the public and private sectors, so that we can scale up things and deliver growth?
I completely and strongly agree with that point, particularly in relation to some of the funding requirements for net zero, for example. That is imperative.
It is fair to say that profits help to drive growth, as we discussed earlier, and growth supports our social policy ambitions. I have no shame in saying that. It is really important to recognise that point.
As the member for Falkirk East, I was particularly interested in the First Minister’s comments about Grangemouth, which was the subject of my question to him yesterday. I welcome the leadership of the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, who is engaging, as I am, with potential investors to ensure a green industrial future for the Grangemouth site. Yesterday, we talked about a key feature of that being the development of carbon capture in Scotland. The Acorn project is a vital component, so we must redouble our efforts to pressurise the UK Government to look beyond England for investment in carbon capture. I therefore welcome the fact that, as part of the programme for government, the First Minister is committed to increasing the £80 million of Scottish funding that is already available to make the Acorn project a reality, should the UK Government give it the go-ahead.
There is much to welcome in the programme for government, and there is much to do. I will play my part in supporting the Government’s ambitions.
16:03
The programme for government is an attempt at damage limitation by the Scottish Government. There is the reinstatement of plans for the cancelled Barra hospital, which were delayed for years but are now being brought back the year before an election. There is the scrapping of peak-time rail fares, which were so recently put in place. There is the pledge to end the 8 am lottery for general practitioner appointments—a lottery that was created by the same Government. There is the commitment to continue to try to find a solution for the Rest and Be Thankful, which was first promised in 2012 and became a manifesto pledge at subsequent Scottish Parliament elections. The Government made those promises while, at the same time, presiding over a worsening situation. In reality, the programme for government is a long letter of apology and a promise to try harder.
One apology that is especially galling for me relates to the addition of women, four years too late, to those who receive protection under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. I lodged amendments that would have done that when the bill was going through the Parliament, as did Johann Lamont, but we were told, “No—misogyny is different. The Government will legislate within a year and women will be protected.” That has not happened.
We suggested that women be covered by the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill and that that protection could be removed when the misogyny bill was introduced. However, that common-sense approach was dismissed. We were told that the Scottish Government would make misogyny a specific crime within a year. Now—four years later—it is taking the approach that we suggested. In those four years, incel culture has been on the rise, and rape and all forms of violence against women have increased. That protection is coming four years too late.
There is so much of this programme for government that is doing what we urged the Scottish Government to do years ago. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but, sadly, it is not flattering—only frustrating that we have a Government that delays and prevaricates and has simply run out of ideas.
I turn to the rural and islands part of the programme for government, which is a rehash of broken promises, too—those things should have been delivered years ago. A crofting bill was promised not only last year but in the previous session of Parliament. The Government shelved it in the previous session, saying that it would bring it back early in this one—yet here we are, rushing complex legislation through at the last gasp. Moreover, we expect to see a timid bill that will not meet the aspirations of the crofting counties, which means that Parliament in the next session will have to wrestle with the issue again.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill does not include communities’ and crofting communities’ right to buy land. We were told that that was because the Scottish Government was holding a review of the legislation, but we later discovered that that was an internal review of its own legislation. We now learn in the programme for government that there will be a consultation on the matter. Why did that not happen before the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced? The bill that is going through Parliament is half-baked and, in its current form, will make no change to land ownership patterns in Scotland. Will the Government be responsible for even more depopulation by doing nothing to help our next generations to remain on the land of their forefathers?
Years ago, we passed temporary legislation to allow farmers to be paid following Brexit. We were told that new legislation and a reformed scheme would be introduced at speed. We have had the enabling legislation, but no new scheme. We all know that the delay is because the £200 million computer system says no—another example of incompetence. However, in the programme for government—without apology for the delays—the Scottish Government boasts that it will publish a rural development programme. Although it must introduce a rural development programme, real change is impossible to achieve without the tools to do so.
As members can imagine, I continued to read the document with increasing trepidation. Then my eyes fell on the words:
“Building on having met all milestones set out in the delivery plan to dual the A9”.
The key delivery milestone was to complete the dualling of the A9 by this year. However, the Government sells that as an achievement, albeit 10 years late. If the situation were not so serious, it would make for a comedy sketch. I say to George Adam that these are the same old attack lines because they are the same old failures.
16:08
I welcome the programme for government. It is always easy for any Government or Opposition to come up with myriad ideas on how to raise taxes and spend money. Indeed, were all demands for cash to be met, we would need a budget of billions of pounds greater than the one that we have.
I am therefore pleased that, although the Deputy First Minister also mentioned the crucial support that the Government provides directly to families, pensioners and our public services, the programme for government leads on the economy. After all, before one can redistribute wealth, it must first be created. Scotland’s gross domestic product—the goods and services that we produce—has grown by 10.3 per cent per person in Scotland since the SNP came into office in 2007, compared with 6.1 per cent across the UK under the Labour, coalition and Tory Governments. That clearly shows the benefits of SNP action in areas of the economy where the devolution settlement enables us to act.
For years, EY has consistently named Scotland as third among the 12 nations and regions of the UK, after London and the south-east, in attracting foreign direct investment. That has been reflected in enhanced inward net annual migration of some 30,000 people a year, one third of whom are from the rest of the UK. We need more people of working age to make their lives in Scotland. As we know, Brexit remains a barrier to that aim. Nevertheless, we must strive to main global competitiveness, particularly in industries where we excel—from life sciences and aerospace to food and drink.
Although trade barriers and tariffs risk causing real economic damage, they can be ameliorated to some degree by taking forward the new and ambitious programme of global engagement envisioned by the First Minister, which will showcase our domestic strengths, boost Scotland’s profile and attract further investment to grow and raise living standards.
The new six-point export plan is, I believe, an exciting one. It will deliver an international growth support programme, with grant support for ambitious Scottish companies. It will support sector export plans for technology, life sciences, renewables and hydrogen in order to tackle and overcome sector-specific barriers, fund research and in-market promotion, while backing individual innovative companies. It will bring more global buyers and suppliers to Scotland through inward missions to showcase the strength of Scottish export potential and supply chains. It will expand Scottish Development International to help export-driven companies by scaling up go-to-market advice and increasing overseas missions, through which companies can get a deep understanding of the opportunities and meet buyers. It will increase funding for our international trade partnership programme with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and expand access to business membership organisations, which can now bid for support for trade missions to established and emerging markets. Finally, it will provide information, advice and support to Scottish companies that are keen to export to America, helping them maintain market share or build new North American business, and develop a US export plan to identify the states that offer the best fit for Scottish exports.
Last year, the Scottish Government initiated a co-ordinated programme to attract capital investment to Scotland. That programme will be expanded by the launch of investScotland, which is a new portal that will showcase investment opportunities and information for investors while providing a single point of entry to Government, and by accelerating a targeted programme of proactive engagement with key capital investors. In my constituency, XLCC will bring 1,200 direct jobs, 2,300 jobs in the Scottish supply chain and a £2 billion investment to Hunterston by 2028.
It is crucial to strengthen SDI’s inward investment activity in Europe and the US by targeting Silicon Valley and other tech hubs and persuading them to bring scaling companies to Scotland. We also need to engage with global financial hubs to strengthen Scotland’s fintech and financial services sector, and leverage opportunities from SDI’s partnership with the City of London Corporation.
Work to seek more co-investment from public and private pension funds in housing and businesses must be accelerated by working with the Scottish local government pension scheme to unlock resources. I know that the Deputy First Minister has been involved in that area.
Scotland has been renowned as a hub of innovation for generations. Our contribution to globally significant inventions and discoveries across myriad spheres is truly astounding. I am delighted that Scottish ministers will continue to nurture and expand sectors that boost Scotland’s profile as a modern, high-growth country, particularly in tech and innovation, where our international reputation is excellent.
Entrepreneurs are critical to our future prosperity. The Scottish Government will support innovators, increase start-up creation, develop business clusters in innovative market areas and build on Scotland’s expertise in critical technologies. The First Minister’s start-up challenge is a bold initiative to encourage and support young people from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds in order to help them start and scale up innovative businesses through tailored ideation support, mentorship and grant funding.
Women are the key to much of our future economic prosperity. Transforming the number of women who start and scale up businesses by investing up to £6 million to implement the “Pathways” report from Ana Stewart and Mark Logan “Pathways” report, including through a further round of competitive funding opportunities and the delivery of pre-start support, will boost female participation.
Launching AI Scotland, a new national transformation programme that will be founded on a partnership of business, academia, agencies and government and will include a national artificial intelligence adoption programme for small and medium-sized enterprises, will keep Scotland at the cutting edge of the artificial intelligence revolution.
Establishing a technology council of global businesses and academic experts to advise the Government on applying and benefiting from emerging technologies while delivering financial support and guidance will enable industry clusters to emerge, grow and remain internationally competitive.
This year’s increase in investment in Scottish Funding Council core research and innovation grants to more than £325 million will support the foundations of research in our universities, develop the talent pipeline, promote knowledge exchange and drive growth.
Frankly, I want even greater prioritisation to be given to that area, with provision of the skills that we need in order to grow our economy. We need to train more apprentices in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, not least among women. Employability support and training to reduce the number of working-age people who are neither working nor in education or training is also critical.
There has recently been a co-ordinated clamour for Scotland to widen the gap with the UK on benefits spending, but the best way out of poverty and all the ills that come with it is well-paid employment. We should never lose sight of that.
While we must work for now within the straitjacket of devolution, ultimately we want to build an enterprising, outward-looking and compassionate Scotland that will flourish with the powers of independence—a nation that understands that the prosperity of a country rests on ensuring the prosperity of every single citizen, and that takes our rightful place at the top table of Europe.
16:15
I will use my time in this debate to speak up for the need for greater and more urgent climate action. To its credit, the Scottish Government has included some action in the programme for government, such as a sizeable investment in energy efficiency measures and setting targets for installing clean heating systems. It will extend the nature restoration fund and provide farmers with capital funding to achieve climate outcomes. There is more support for the transition to electric vehicles, at least in theory, and there will be a new national flood advisory service, which reflects the calls that I made for a unified body in the wake of the storm Babet floods.
Those are all welcome measures and I hope that they all do some good, but the reality is that they do not amount to the transformational change that we need in order to deliver net zero on time and build a circular economy. My concern is that Governments are facing and will continue to face increasing pressure to avoid taking those difficult but necessary steps to keep us on track.
Climate action is an issue where we had consensus on both the need for action and the price to be paid should we fail—I say “had consensus” because the climate debate is changing from how we act to whether we act. That is not a debate that we can afford, and it will come as a shock to many who thought that the case for action, backed by scientific consensus, had been won. The effects of climate change will be felt everywhere, with serious and lasting consequences for our communities. Everyone needs to think about which is worse: being ambitious in our targets and policies even if we might not always succeed, or stoking up a narrative against climate action?
Let me be clear that I am not for a moment suggesting that the Scottish Government should get a free pass for failure. I have held and will continue to hold it to account when it does not live up to its promises. The Scottish Government would expect me to do that, such as when it failed to meet its emissions targets nine times in 13 years. That was disappointing, to say the least, as is the fact that the annual emissions targets have now been scrapped altogether, along with the interim net zero target.
I have an enormous amount of respect for the member and his views on the issue, but will he at some point in his speech deal with the elephant in the room, which is that the Conservative Party throughout the UK is walking away from net zero and the arguments for it? Kemi Badenoch has made that quite clear. Every single time the Scottish Government brings a difficult decision to the chamber, the Scottish Conservatives vote against it. I respect the member’s personal position, but does he feel a degree of discomfort about his party’s?
What I say to colleagues on net zero is, “You turn if you want to, but this MSP is remaining committed to tackling climate change.”
I go back to the Scottish Government, because that is essentially what we are here to discuss. We have the rather strange and intriguing position of the Scottish Government repeatedly failing to meet the 2013 household recycling target. That was not a misquote by me; it really is the target from 2013. If we cannot meet the 2013 household recycling target by asking members of the public to put something in a bin in their house or near their home, there is no chance of achieving net zero.
We have the same story on the circular economy. The Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 was watered down to deal only with waste and litter, albeit that I say to Murdo Fraser that those are important matters. Meanwhile, incineration capacity is ballooning past the point where the policy makes sense. There is a long list of failures. Only yesterday, Friends of the Earth Scotland felt compelled to say that the Scottish Government was “paying lip service” to climate action.
I call that out to highlight the failure to make enough progress. As I said in last year’s debate on growing the green economy, we cannot expect the public to lend us their support or businesses to invest their money if they are unsure that the government of the day will deliver. We have run out of time for yet more consultations, road maps, working groups, talking shops and strategies. Where there is action from the Scottish Government, it is too limited. Talk of a latte levy will not create enough behavioural change for a circular economy, but it would be a game-changer to throw the full might of public procurement spend behind circular economy choices.
Dundee’s low-emission zone is too small and it does not cover the areas that would make the most difference, such as the outlying retail parks where people do most of their shopping. The focus on a tiny area in the city centre means that the most behavioural change that we are likely to see is from taxi drivers. In addition, the roll-out of thousands of electric chargers whose cost is double that of petrol disenfranchises all those who cannot charge at home, who are primarily the poorest in society.
Protecting our standard of living and providing for our children’s future requires transformational climate action, and I believe that that is what the Scottish Government should deliver.
16:21
I am certainly supportive of encouraging the economy to grow. There are many factors involved in making that happen, including having enough workers with the appropriate skills and making Scotland an attractive place to live and do business. Scotland is well thought of by many people around the world. It is seen as an attractive place to live, with world-class universities, much innovative research, a good environment, high-quality food and drink, great scenery and golf courses—and the list goes on.
Yesterday, the Finance and Public Administration Committee was reminded by the Scottish Human Rights Commission that Governments have a duty to maximise the resources that are available to them and not only to make cuts when they are in a tight financial situation. Let us also remember that Scotland and the UK are low-tax countries. Other European countries such as Denmark and Norway have higher tax rates and better quality public services, and that scenario can be attractive to businesses.
While I am talking about other countries, I note that we should welcome investment from overseas, but it worries me how much of our whisky and salmon production industries are foreign owned. I am not sure that we have the right balance on that score.
Another factor that is relevant to growing our economy is whether we have enough people of working age. Some of the projections by the Scottish Fiscal Commission make concerning reading. Our population continues to age, so it is difficult to avoid the fact that we are going to need immigration for the foreseeable future.
Growing the economy is fine, but we need to share out the benefits in a better way. It is not automatic that poorer folk will benefit from a growing economy. I was encouraged to hear the First Minister say in his statement yesterday that he wants to see
“a fairer Scotland, with Scotland’s growing wealth shared more fairly”—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; c 15.]
However, I am less clear about how he proposes to do that.
The next big theme in the programme for government is eradicating child poverty. I suggest that, if we are to eradicate child poverty, we need to increase taxation. Clearly, we cannot do that in the current year—in 2025-26—but, during the next 12 months, we should certainly push ahead with plans to replace the council tax and, hopefully, introduce a wealth tax.
How we spend the money that we have is also crucial. As the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations points out in its briefing,
“more and better housing would make a major contribution to reducing child poverty”.
If we are serious about tackling the housing emergency that the Parliament and several councils have declared, we have to put housing right at the top of the shopping list, and good projects such as dualling the A9 should be postponed. We should take action of that kind. I question the point of saying that we have a housing emergency if it makes no difference to how we spend our money.
I urge the Government to take action and put its money where its mouth is.
We move to winding-up speeches.
16:24
I apologise for popping out for a brief break.
I have the joys of speaking twice in this debate, although I may have to get used to the deafening silence after I have spoken, which I am sure I will over time. [Laughter.] To be fair, attendance is looking quite slim on the other side of the chamber these days.
I mentioned in my opening speech that my remarks would be twofold in nature. My opening speech centred on common ground on economic growth, and it has been good to hear members across the chamber, including Government members, making quite bolstering comments. In my closing remarks, I will focus on public sector reform and how we target Government interventions to genuinely eradicate poverty, which is an admirable ambition.
Simply throwing money at a problem does not always solve it. I say that because I have sat on the Public Audit Committee for some time now. The devolved welfare bill is now approaching 15 per cent of the entire Scottish budget, and that is likely to grow, as is the case when we devolve responsibility for matters.
As I know at first hand, poverty is not necessarily about how much money people have in their pocket on any given day—poverty is complex and wide ranging. Seeing the issue solely through the prism of day-to-day finances makes it incredibly easy for the Government to attribute its lack of progress on eradicating poverty solely to finances. That makes it all too easy for the Government to blame other Governments and other Parliaments for its inability to eradicate poverty.
However, poverty is much wider than that—poverty of health, of opportunity, of circumstance, of safety and of personal household resilience are just as important. Let me give some examples. On mental health, 21 per cent of adults living in Scotland’s most deprived communities report two or more symptoms of depression, compared with 8 per cent of those living in the least deprived areas. What about addiction? According to the Poverty Alliance, people living in our most deprived communities are 18 times more likely to experience problem drug use.
Will the member give way?
I am very short on time.
What about adverse childhood experiences? Children in the most deprived areas of Scotland are 20 times more likely to be care experienced. What about poor circumstances? Issues of housing quality, housing availability and housing affordability are also major causes of physical, mental and financial health issues. That national shame—it really is our other national shame—sees thousands of Scottish children living in temporary accommodation because there are no suitable permanent homes for them.
What about the crisis in our college and university sector? Pam Duncan-Glancy made the point that many of those great institutions are facing the wall financially, when upskilling and retraining a workforce should be the Government’s number 1 priority. The young Scots of today are the business leaders of the future. I say to the Government that fixing those problems would fix the economy.
That is why I move on to comments that were made earlier and credited to the Wise Group. If members get the chance, they should pop out and chat to the Wise Group outside the chamber. It says that targeted, data-rich interventions that result in a one-to-one tailored mentoring opportunity for vulnerable households are the only way in which we will turn the tables on poverty. Practical measures, not programmes for government, will fix the problem.
In the Wise Group’s words,
“poverty in Scotland is not just about income. It’s about the grinding reality of being trapped in a bureaucratic labyrinth where the help on offer is confusing, disconnected, and often dehumanising.”
It describes Scotland’s public sector as
“an exhausting maze of silos and short-term fixes.”
Those are entirely the Wise Group’s words, not mine, and that is from an organisation that is funded by the Scottish Government. How true that is.
The reality is that there is no one-stop shop these days to help people with housing, energy, debt, childcare and mental health issues. People are simply passed from pillar to post, and from one agency to another. There is endless bureaucracy and red tape, and people never actually get the targeted interventions that they need and which would reflect the uniqueness of their own personal circumstances.
That is why the Wise Group rightly calls for integrated public services and one-to-one assistance and mentoring programmes. It says—to give the Government credit—that the money is there, but it claims that the political will is not. Those reforms need to take place sooner rather than later, and I hope that there is the cross-party support and will behind them.
The Government’s motion fails to acknowledge the SNP’s dominance in Scottish politics over nearly two decades, and it does not accept that radical change needs to accelerate at pace. Although I agree with much of what is said in several of the amendments to the motion, Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the Green and Conservative amendments. However, I am happy to support the Labour amendment, because I agree that furthering regional economic development and growth, and using technology to do so, is one way to accelerate economic growth, in particular in the region that Paul O’Kane and I mutually represent.
Finally, I highlight the two themes of growth and targeted intervention. Poverty is complex, which means that the Government must spend its money wisely and on those who need it most. I close with the words of the Wise Group, which says:
“We have the data. We have the tools. We have the models. What we don’t have—yet—is the political guts”.
Does that not just sum up these 18 years of the Government?
16:31
We stand today at a crossroads. In the face of accelerating climate breakdown, deepening economic inequality and relentless attacks on the rights of the most marginalised, the choices that we make now will define our future.
Our constituents, our communities and our country need us to choose hope, justice and radical action to transform the structures and systems that drive social inequality and environmental degradation. We need bold, urgent action towards a very different model of economy and society in which people and planet are valued and supported, and social justice, environmental justice and economic justice are seen as one and the same.
We cannot build a green future on a foundation of poverty wages and insecure housing. We cannot deliver a just transition for our climate without justice for workers—not only those in the North Sea but those in care homes and in our communities. We cannot claim to restore nature if the communities who live closest to it are locked out of land ownership and democratic power.
This programme for government takes some important steps forward, and we have heard a lot about that over the past couple of days, but it could have done so much more. Where is the courage to confront fossil fuel interests head on? Where is the urgency to democratise our economy and bring energy, housing and land into public hands, where they belong? Where is the ambition to redistribute wealth so that those who have profited from crisis pay their fair share for recovery and so that our public services are resourced appropriately?
We have so much more work to do. Rather than just tweak around the edges or manage decline, we must transform our economy and society, because we cannot allow net zero to mean zero hope for communities that are already struggling.
Lorna Slater, and even Maurice Golden, spoke about the need to phase out fossil fuels and tackle the climate crisis. We know from bitter experience that we cannot rely on voluntary corporate co-operation or vague timeframes, given the urgent action that is required. We need a planned, state-led transition away from oil and gas, with guarantees for workers and their communities, and their voices at its heart.
Just this morning, those of us who attended the Scottish Parliament information centre breakfast discussion heard about how the climate crisis is a public health issue—the biggest public health issue that we face. The failure to act will lead to the worsening of the physical and mental health of us all, and it will put additional pressures on our public services—not only our NHS, but all of them. We cannot let our wellbeing, never mind the planet’s survival, be left to market forces and corporate pledges.
The reliance on private sector investment and market mechanisms reflects a belief that just tweaking around the edges of the systems that we already have will deliver the results that we need. Scottish Greens believe, instead, that we need to challenge the economic system that underpins the climate crisis and social inequalities that are all too apparent in our society today.
There is also no meaningful move towards public or community ownership of key sectors such as energy, housing or land. Rhoda Grant spoke about the desperate need for land reform. Incremental and technocratic approaches lack the urgency that is needed to confront ecological breakdown and systematic inequality. We cannot achieve a better society without uplifting those who have been pushed to the margins for too long—disabled people, racialised communities, LGBTQIA+ people, asylum seekers, refugees and care-experienced young people. Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jamie Greene highlighted statistics on the inequality that many of those groups face, which should shame us all.
Although the policies that are in the PFG to address inequality are welcome, and we would like to go further by increasing the Scottish child payment to £40 by the end of the parliamentary session and by introducing rent controls that make rents cheaper, we know that we do not have all the levers that are needed to properly challenge the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. However, the programme for government is silent on some of the things that we can do, such as taxing wealth or unearned income and democratising our land use and economic planning. That redistribution of wealth and power is essential if we are to maintain and improve the public services that we all rely on and to empower communities where they are.
Finally, the lack of action on equalities and human rights is a real concern. The broken promises on both the proposed misogyny bill and legislation to end conversion practices will not be forgotten soon. There is also little in the way of action on investment in care infrastructure, which was identified by the UK’s Women’s Budget Group as being essential for a more equal society, or on the systemic undervaluation of women’s work. We know that child poverty is often women’s poverty.
The Scottish Government has been urged, repeatedly, to have equality and human rights analyses at the core of all its policy development. I do not think that the programme for government adequately addresses the inability for women, disabled people, care-experienced people and so many other minoritised individuals and communities to realise their basic human rights every day.
That is why we will keep pushing not for policy tweaks but for a different kind of politics: one that listens, empowers and tells the truth, which is that we cannot have a healthy society in a dirty economy; we cannot live well on a dying planet; and we cannot save that planet without justice for all who live on it. This is a moment not just to protect what we love but to reimagine what is possible. That is what we in the Scottish Greens are determined to do, for people and planet.
16:37
I welcome the debate. Following Maggie Chapman’s contribution about the human rights element of the debate, it is interesting to note that one of the challenges for the Government with recent legislation, including the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Education (Scotland) Bill, is about why the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is not being adopted in all those areas, as that assurance was made. However, that is perhaps a discussion to be had with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice on another occasion.
I welcome the fact that there has been strong agreement across the chamber about the importance of economic growth if we are going to see any changes in future.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, if it is short.
On the point about economic growth, earlier, my colleague Kevin Stewart intervened on the Deputy First Minister to highlight Harbour Energy’s announcement on the loss of 250 jobs. I press the member to ensure that our Scottish Labour colleagues do everything that they can to persuade the UK Government that its fiscal regime—in other words, the energy profits levy—is damaging Scotland.
We have heard on a number of occasions about the Scottish Government’s strong and developing relationship with the UK Government. Let us see how those discussions go.
I turn to Jamie Greene’s points about the complex nature and causes of poverty. The Government has identified poverty in different ways over the past 18 years, but I will use the phrase, “You know it when you see it.” Some people who are outside the Parliament will look at the complex discussions around poverty and, quite frankly and rightly, become exasperated, because they just need more money in their pockets.
It behoves members, and particularly the Scottish Government, to look at the reality of the complex nature of poverty, as we have discussed. John Mason raised the massively important question of housing and the complex interlinking parts of that jigsaw. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat amendment talks about the devices that are available for us to identify poverty. If nothing else from the programme for government debate can go forward—
Will Martin Whitfield take an intervention?
I will, if it is short.
Martin Whitfield is talking about poverty. Kenny Gibson summed it up really well, and we should all agree: the best route out of poverty is a well-paid job. The Labour Government has just made it very difficult to create well-paid jobs. Does Martin Whitfield not feel a responsibility for continuing the poverty trap through that policy?
I am always grateful for an intervention from Stephen Kerr. However, I also look at the pay rise that the UK Labour Government has given to some of the poorest-paid people across the whole of the United Kingdom, through the rise in the minimum wage. [Interruption.] Stephen Kerr is indicating from a sedentary position that it gives with one hand and takes with the other. However, the reality is that the money must be raised following the disastrous and catastrophic economic situation that the UK Government was left in by the previous party that entertained that.
I want to talk about the four priorities, and I am now very conscious of time. I welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to concentrate on eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency and ensuring high-quality, sustainable public services. In particular, it would be beneficial for the Government to organise a debate about how that last element can be achieved.
I raise the absence this year of what has existed in the past by way of a judgment on how well the programme for government has been achieved. Previously, we have had First Minister’s mandate letters—in essence, a personalised letter to each cabinet secretary, setting out the outcomes that were expected of that cabinet secretary, how those were to be achieved and the time period in which those achievements had to be made. Clearly, we have a very finite time period of 12 months, so I wonder whether the cabinet secretary is able to explain why, this year, we have not seen the mandate letters for the programme for government. The previous ones were published and I would like to see the follow-up on that, because they are an accountability mechanism—which it is extremely important to have.
The Deputy First Minister, in an intervention, when pushed by Murdo Fraser about the trade deal, turned the subject around to talk about failures of mandates in not complying with manifestos—which has been an aspect of a significant number of the contributions to the debate. Previous manifesto promises that were made by the SNP Scottish Government have failed to be delivered.
We have heard about the causes of a lack or potential shortage of a workforce; yet, as Pam Duncan-Glancy rightly pointed out, the 84,000 young people in Scotland who are not in education, employment or training are a pool, which, when it comes to apprenticeships and skills development for what the country needs, would be a marvellous place to start. Will 84,000 young people be in training in 12 months’ time? As I come to the termination of my speech, I set that challenge down, along with a number of other broken promises.
I will finish on one of the finest contributions to the debate, which will stick with me. It was from Rhoda Grant. As she said, the programme for government is a “long letter of apology” and a promise to do better.
16:44
Barring political accidents—which can happen from time to time—this will be the final contribution that I make to a programme for government debate. I ask members not to get too excited just yet. [Laughter.] If my records are correct, I have spoken in every such debate since I was elected in 2007.
I look back to that occasion, when the late Alex Salmond addressed the Parliament. He said:
“a minority Government ... can propose and lead, but cannot compel or dictate”,
and that, as such, a programme for government should be one that
“seeks to persuade, rather than one that asserts the domination of one party”.—[Official Report, 5 September 2007; c 1362.]
He went on to say that the SNP should be judged on competence, on consensus and on vision, and that central to all of that was the economic strategy, which would involve lower tax and regulation on business, boosting the nation’s skills and boosting enterprise. Members can look back at the rest of the transcript of that debate.
At that time, John Swinney was Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth. He made several speeches then on concerns about the weak growth in the Scottish economy and the fact that it was underachieving. He said that he wanted to focus on supporting business and on his ambition to deliver a smaller and more effective Government for Scotland. Well, that was then, and this is now.
With regard to supporting business, over the past two decades, it has been a pretty dismal picture for the Scottish Government, although I note some encouraging signs from among business leaders, who believe that there is now a slight change of focus from the Deputy First Minister in order to listen and address a lot of their concerns. However, they might well be concerned because they have witnessed a progressively higher tax burden being imposed on hard-working Scots over many years, without the requisite improvement in public services or a widening of the tax base, which I know that the Deputy First Minister is concerned about.
We saw an 8.3 per cent real-terms cut in the economy portfolio two budgets ago, when the real-terms increase in the overall budget was 2.2 per cent. There were further cuts this year to the enterprise, trade and investment budget and a failure to pass on business rates in full.
I listened carefully to what the Deputy First Minister said yesterday and to what she said today—that inward investment is strong and that Scottish Enterprise is working hard to stimulate growth in the business sector. She also implied that, when it comes to the difficult choices that the Government faces, there has been less success with the skills agenda. I agree with her on that point, because there has not been nearly enough focus on cutting out billions of pounds of waste and replacing it with preventative spend.
The Scottish Government must be much more focused on stopping that waste and it must think far more about the benefits of preventative spend. For example, many people in the world of sport are complaining about the cuts to budgets ahead of major events such as the Commonwealth games, the Tour de France and the Euros, when it has been said that it is wonderful that Scotland will be hosting them. Those people were assured of certain budgets in sport and, so far, the promises are wearing very thin.
With regard to John Swinney’s promise in 2007 to ensure that Scotland had a smaller and more effective Government, the facts speak for themselves. The tentacles of the state in Scotland, particularly with regard to social policy, have only ever been increasing. The size of the state has burgeoned through the growth of quangos and a leviathan and unreformed public sector. Since 2022, we have had 500 additional civil servants in top pay grades—so much for a smaller and more effective Government.
The programme for government, like its immediate predecessors, remains stubbornly fixed on the social contract. That is all well and good in theory, but it cannot be paid for. As every economic forecaster is telling us, the main reason is the deeper and deeper fiscal hole due to the exponential rise in the benefits bill, which is predicted to be £1.3 billion over the budgeted amount for 2025-26.
The First Minister, yesterday and then today on the radio, was trumpeting the fact that he has public finances under control. I am not sure what economic briefings he has been reading, but it is certainly not those with a view from planet earth. For example, having read the programme for government very carefully, I can find no detail of how the Scottish Government intends to pay for its welfare spending, which is predicted to be £2 billion in deficit by 2030, nor, as the Fraser of Allander Institute pointed out yesterday, is there any real detail on the timetable for delivery of the mitigation of the two-child cap. Likewise, we do not have final details about the public sector pay deals.
If there is one current example of the damage from fiscal pressures, it is what is happening in our university and college sectors, not just in relation to the high-profile case of the University of Dundee but in relation to the pernicious underfunding that is affecting college and university courses, teaching grants, research and the morale of all those who work in those sectors.
Time and time again, I have heard from the Scottish Government that the ills of tertiary education have been imposed in the aftermath of Brexit or by pressures imposed by Westminster. However, ministers know, as do an increasing number of members of the public and other parties in the Parliament, that the current model of SNP funding—not anyone else’s model—is simply not sustainable.
So existential is the issue—I know that the First Minister has had the full details explained to him by various vice-chancellors—that it is no longer a question of if the current model will be abandoned but when. We cannot go on with a model that is undermining the very future of our colleges and universities and that discriminates against domiciled Scots because of the artificial cap on places.
I will finish on that point and I hope that, in my future career, I will listen to debates rather than speak in them.
16:50
I am grateful to all the members who have engaged constructively in the debate today, focusing—as we all have been, but perhaps from different perspectives—on the best future for Scotland.
As the Deputy First Minister said in her opening speech, eradicating child poverty and growing our economy go hand in hand. Without one, we simply cannot achieve the other. A strong economy will not only support investment in our ambitious anti-poverty measures and the public services on which we all rely; it will support a buoyant labour market that will provide the opportunities for parents and others to increase their earnings through fair work. That point was made by Kenny Gibson and other members.
In the programme for government that was published this week, the First Minister set out the Government’s plans for delivery in the final year of this parliamentary session, building on the action that we have taken to date, and he highlighted the progress that we will continue to make.
We have delivered. Over the lifetime of this parliamentary session, action has been taken to reduce child poverty and to tackle its roots. We have expanded the Scottish child payment to eligible children under the age of 16 and more than doubled the value of the support that is available for families, helping families both in and out of work to meet the costs of raising a child. We have nearly doubled the number of funded childcare hours for all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds, helping to give the best start in life to every child and supporting more parents to access training, learning and employment.
We have helped to deliver more than 26,000 affordable homes and moved towards our ambitious target of 110,000 homes by 2032, helping families to access warm, safe homes. We have supported 28,000 parents through our devolved employability services. Those actions and the wider actions that we have taken are making a difference to families and to our economic prosperity.
Official statistics that were published in March show that, despite the considerable headwinds that we have faced, the proportion of children who are living in relative poverty has reduced and the 2023-24 rate was lower than it had been in any year since 2014-15, while the proportion of children who are in absolute poverty has also fallen, with the annual figure being the lowest in 30 years.
Our action is making a difference to families. On average, households with children who are in the poorest 10 per cent of households are estimated to be £2,600 a year better off in 2025-26 as a result of Scottish Government policies. This Government is delivering for the people of Scotland.
However, it is also important to reflect on what the UK Government has delivered for the people of Scotland. At this point, I want to mention Murdo Fraser and his praise of Brexit. I point out to him that modelling by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research estimates that, due to Brexit, there was a 2.5 per cent hit to GDP by 2023 and that there will be a 5.7 per cent hit to GDP by 2035. That makes a real difference right across the country to every single business and community.
Murdo Fraser rose—
If Murdo Fraser would like to defend Brexit further, I am happy to take the intervention.
What modelling can the cabinet secretary point to that gives the impact that independence would have on the Scottish economy and public finances? According to the Scottish Government’s own economic adviser, the impact would be “Brexit times 10”.
Murdo Fraser knows well the answer to that, as he consistently reminds members in the chamber that the Scottish Government has delivered a great deal of detailed work on the benefits of independence. If he wants to see that work, perhaps he should not complain when the Government delivers it.
It is also important that we recognise the successes in the economy. That is why it is important that we look at earnings growth, with median monthly pay for payroll employees having grown by 2.6 per cent in real terms, compared with 2.1 per cent in the UK. We are making a difference, despite the fact that the Tories have delivered Brexit and Labour is now defending it.
A number of members, including Jamie Greene, mentioned public service reform—and they are right to do so. I point him to the work that is in the programme for government on whole-family support and on the fairer futures partnerships, because that gets right to the heart of the challenge that he, quite rightly, presented to us today, which is to deliver public services for people when they need them, to ease the difficulty of finding that support and for it not only to be there at points of crisis.
Many members have mentioned the dualling of the A9 and the A96. On the topic of delivery, when will the Nairn bypass be delivered?
Fergus Ewing will be well versed in what Fiona Hyslop has told the Parliament about the on-going work on that. He will note that Fiona Hyslop was on the A9 very recently to take forward the next stage of that, and she is taking forward the discussions and work on the bypass.
Pam Duncan-Glancy talked about education. I spare a thought for those parents who look forward to going home to see how today’s higher English exam went—I do not think that I am the only one in the chamber in that position. I look forward to those discussions, as I am sure that others do.
It is important to look at what we have delivered in education. There have been record levels of literacy and numeracy attainment for primary and secondary pupils. There has also been a record-low attainment gap in literacy for primary pupils and for secondary pupils at level 3 in both literacy and numeracy between the proportions of pupils from the most and least deprived areas. That is delivering for our young people.
Of course, 95.7 per cent of school leavers are entering a positive initial destination on leaving school.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
If Pam Duncan-Glancy would like to explain to the Parliament how, for example, taking away money to which under-22s are entitled due to their disability will help that young person and that family to get into employment, I would be delighted to hear about it.
I note that the cabinet secretary quickly moved on from data on the attainment gap when she saw that I was about to seek an intervention on the topic. Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns of families whose young people have sat highers today that those who come from poorer backgrounds are more likely to have poorer results because the attainment gap for highers—she has failed to point this out—is now higher than it has been?
I am sure that the young people who are going through their exams and vocational training and their parents will be heartened by the fact that 95.7 per cent of school leavers entered a positive initial destination on leaving school. That is the second-highest figure since records began in 2009-10.
Unsurprisingly, many members have come to the chamber to ask us to deliver more in different areas. I would like to touch on Kenny Gibson’s point about policy coherence. I am afraid that economic incoherence is something that we have heard quite a lot of today—there has been a litany of demands for more money and disappointments about what is in the programme for government but no suggestions as to how to pay for them. I suggest that that is all because members in Opposition parties do not believe that they will be anywhere near Government any time soon. If they did, they would not come forward with a list of things to do without constructive ways of how to deliver them.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I hope that Paul O’Kane will forgive me. I usually give way to him, but I am running short of time.
There is also policy incoherence. I point to Murdo Fraser. To be fair to him, he is an exceptionally busy man, so he probably had not caught up with the fact that Tory members on a committee yesterday voted to make rent controls easier. I have enormous respect for my Scottish Green colleagues, who have a very principled stance on that matter, and I look forward to continuing discussions on it. At least their approach has been consistent. I am not entirely sure how the members from the Tory party can defend their approach, but I look forward to those discussions continuing.
Martin Whitfield talked about accountability. The accountability for ministers—and, indeed, for all of us—is clear: it is the election. With one year to go, I look forward—in fact, I relish this—to taking the Government’s record to the people with our vision for hope for the future.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Business Motions