Chamber and committees

I thank the minister not only for that answer but for calling out the UK Government on the two-child limit. Is he able to give further information on what steps are being taken specifically in Scotland to give our Scottish children the best quality start in life?

Mr Johnson just made the mistake of saying that a 0.2 per cent contribution to UK GDP from the Australia-UK trade deal was anticipated. It is actually a 0.02 per cent contribution.

I very much welcome this timely debate. I must start with the declaration of an historical interest. In late 2017 and early 2018, I was a co-author of two reports on Brexit and Scottish business that drew attention to the prospect of a hard Brexit having significant implications for skills availability. Brexit has been harder than was anticipated by any of the over 200 business leaders with whom I engaged. It is fair to say that none of the business leaders anticipated the attitude of the UK Government would be characterised by an “eff business” approach. As a direct consequence, Scotland’s skills challenge is even greater than expected.

I agree completely with the motion when it stresses the challenge to our labour market from the utter madness of the Tory Brexit. Skills shortages are increasing. Ending free movement is hugely damaging. We face a future filled with uncertainty, and the disruption to international trade raises huge questions for business. So one thing is clear—[Interruption.]

I shall not give way. For the record, Presiding Officer, I have noticed a huge difference between this Parliament and Westminster in that the vast majority of members here engage in substantive debate, whereas Westminster is characterised by barrack-room lawyers—hence my refusal to give way.

One thing is clear: the labour market that we need to prepare for is not the labour market of pre-Brexit and pre-pandemic Scotland. Thankfully, the Scottish Government has not been standing idly by and has commissioned a range of work. In this speech, I will reference the Higgins report and the Cumberford-Little report, both of which give a clear sense of what is needed if we are to have the skills to meet the challenges of the future.

The Cumberford-Little report, “One Tertiary System: Agile, Collaborative, Inclusive”, makes a telling observation when it states:

“we must insist on excellence rather than competence within the content, assessment, and currency of technical and professional qualifications.”

That is a welcome call from an excellent Government-commissioned report.

The call for a focus on excellence is mirrored in other quarters—for example, in the Higgins report, “Towards a robust, resilient wellbeing economy for Scotland”, which gives considerable prominence to the importance of skills development in building a sustainable future. Of particular interest is its emphasis on ensuring the provision of high-quality skills that effectively reflect real-world business and economic needs. For example, it raises an issue of business concern in the following terms:

“Many apprenticeships have high value in the labour market, but this depends on their quality ... Expanding the number of apprenticeships in this period of depressed economic activity will be challenging. Generating new apprenticeships that are not of high quality will undermine the reputation and value of apprenticeships.”

Therefore, as such reports make clear, putting quality at the heart of skills development is of fundamental importance.

I hasten to add, however, that I wholly appreciate the competing demands and complexities that the Scottish Government faces. It is right to have a concern for short-term challenges, particularly for young people, given the potential that exists for serious long-term damage to be done to individual figures and the economy, but our concerns regarding the wider economy, business and young people are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly rational to have short, medium and long-term ambitions for the skills sector, where issues of excellence and quality are one of the golden threads.

From a business and economy standpoint, the Government has also undertaken a great deal of work in recent times to develop effective policy frameworks that set a clear international context for our needs. Excellent work that was led by Ivan McKee in producing “Scotland: a trading nation” identified 15 priority 1 countries and 11 priority 2 countries for our exporting ambitions. Separately from that, the office of the chief economic adviser to the Scottish Government conducted a competitor analysis across 66 goods sectors and 19 service sectors, using data from more than 100 countries. That formidable piece of work identified eight key competitor countries for Scotland.

There is a tie-up there. Remarkably, seven countries are priority 1 countries and also our key competitors. I will not list all those countries, but research shows that they have a very high commitment to skills development to international standards. Therefore, I ask the minister whether there might be a case in the future for looking at international skills benchmarking with such countries.

The work that the Scottish Government has done in commissioning external research and undertaking its own research is to be commended. As we move forward, the Scottish Government will have my full support as it faces the complex and developing skills challenges.

What preparations are being made to reassure the international community that the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—which is due to take place in Glasgow in November, can be held safely, considering the logistical challenges of the pandemic and the potential emergence of more strains?

As the minister knows, volunteer groups, charities and organisations such as Falkirk and District Association for Mental Health—FDAMH—provide vital independent support within our communities, and their work often complements and supports that of our national health service mental health services. The recent LifeSearch report shows that 44 per cent of all Scottish adults are less happy now than before the start of the pandemic, with Covid-related fears, including around financial health and further lockdowns, dominating the list of future worries.

I have a simple question: will the minister outline what support the Scottish Government will make available to organisations such as FDAMH to help them rise to the challenge of further supporting our communities while we face the uncertainties of transitioning back into as normal a life as possible?

I plan to address two areas in this short speech.

First, I commend the Scottish Government’s commitment to creating a register of interests for members of the judiciary, and I congratulate the legal journalist Peter Cherbi for his long-standing commitment to that principle, which stems from his petition of 2012. In preparing for the debate, I read with interest the arguments for and against the proposal, particularly those of the Rt Hon Lord Carloway. He draws heavily on the refreshed statement of judicial ethics in arguing that there is no need for change.

I take a consequentialist or end-result approach to the ethics of the matter, rather than a rule-based or deontological approach. In other words, we as public servants in this place fully accept the need for a register of our pecuniary interests not only because of the risk of our interests affecting our law making, but because of the perception that they may influence it. The end, in this case, does indeed justify the means.

We fully accept that we have a duty and an obligation to have such a register in bearing the privilege of acting and being paid as servants of the public, so what makes judges different? Surely, as Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde notes, transparency is part and parcel of accountability.

Lord Carloway states:

“I remain of the view that ... any monitoring of judicial conduct, including judges’ interests relative to the performance of their duties, should remain a matter for the Judiciary and not for Government or Parliament.”

Really? That can only be described as the judiciary marking their own homework.

That leads me on to the second key section of my speech, which is on the issue of the Law Society of Scotland marking its own homework, in the form of lawyers regulating lawyers. I must declare an interest in this area, as I am one of the few complainants who have successfully navigated the vagaries of the Law Society processes. Despite—I hope—not being without intellectual means, as a consumer, I found the process complex, opaque and time consuming. It is my belief that the overarching legislation that governs the process is neither fit for purpose nor of its time. Other disciplines, such as the medical and charity sectors, have long since moved away from marking their own homework and the application of “beyond all reasonable doubt” as the test. There are clearly critical issues with the processes adopted that are contrary to the principles of better regulation and, in particular, the need to be consistent, accountable and transparent.

I support the calls for reform from the Esther Roberton review. Ms Roberton said:

“I concluded that those who use legal services, and those that deliver these services, will be best served in the future by independent regulation that meets internationally recognised regulation principles”.

She was not alone. More recently, the Competition and Markets Authority noted:

“Separating regulation from representation will increase trust in this sector and result in better regulation”.

The cabinet secretary has accountability for a huge portfolio, and I respect the fact that the challenges to recover, renew and transform justice are significant. At some point—not today—I hope to ask him about the status of the public consultation that sought to seek consensus on the way forward on the future of the legal services regulatory framework for Scotland. However, I note that such consensus—or compromise—may prove to be elusive, which appears to be the view of some in the Law Society.

Recently, in an article in Legal Practice Management, Neil Stevenson, the chief executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, asked:

“if a compromise is found, is that a compromise in the best interests of the profession and the public, or a compromise between organisations with understandable vested interests?”.

Stevenson quotes Stephen Mayson, who undertook a review of legal regulation in England and Wales. Mayson noted that

“the regulatory framework should better reflect the legitimate needs and expectations of the more than 90% of the population for whom it is not currently designed”—

that is, consumers.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the LifeSearch health, wealth and happiness report for 2020-21. (S6O-00019)

—and which is pushing for a trade deal without protections, and without consultation, which could do untold damage.

I finish my speech as I started it by saying that free trade is never free. Precisely because of that, we must ensure that Scotland’s farming businesses are not unwittingly sacrificed on the altar of Tory Government incompetence.

As with lunch, free trade is never free. It can bring benefits, but we must not be blind to the costs, complexity, and potential threats. In principle, I support free trade, given that it can drive economic efficiency and productivity, and reduce the likelihood of wars by creating economic interdependence. It can even reduce political corruption, as powerful interest groups have less scope for manipulating trade policies to serve their own ends.

However, there are many potential hazards with the proposed Australia trade deal, many of which have been powerfully stated by my colleague Jim Fairlie. I also anticipate that my other colleagues will deftly deal with the issues, be they around the environment, our ambitions for climate change, food security and standards, animal welfare concerns, the specific nature of Scottish farming, the paltry contribution that the deal brings to UK GDP—at 0.2 per cent—the lack of consultation or the impact on rural economies.

I will focus on the fact that the financial environment in which our farming businesses operate could be changed significantly as a consequence of both Brexit and subsequent new trading arrangements, whether based on free trade or not.

I want to talk to Scottish farm businesses with loans or overdrafts. Commercial lending for business is vastly different from lending for ordinary consumers. For a start, it is not regulated. That means that commercial contracts with banks are treated in law as a contract among equals. In addition to that, most people, including many businesspeople, are of the mistaken view that the servicing of the debt in the form of regular repayments is sufficient. However, most banks reserve the right to call in a debt at any time of their choosing, regardless of whether the debt is being serviced or the business is profitable. Any change in circumstances—and fundamental changes to the marketplace through a trade deal are certainly such a change—can therefore be used by banks to call in loans, which could have a catastrophic consequence for business.

We know from recent experience that banks in the UK have a blemished record of serving small and medium-sized enterprises. Post-2008, many small businesses had their bank loans called in; owners were sequestrated, and they lost their livelihoods. Worse is that the UK Treasury and the Tory-Lib Dem Government at that time worked with what was the Royal Bank of Scotland to identify businesses that could be pushed into financial distress and then asset stripped. Other banks had similar approaches and justified their actions based on changed business circumstances such as changed valuations. I beg to suggest that trade deals also change circumstances and valuations. I therefore simply ask whether any consideration has been given to the possible attitude of banks to the farming community sector. Given the current high lending to agriculture, has the UK Government carried out any form of due diligence to assess the exposure of SME farming businesses to the actions of the banks? I doubt it.

My final point is that few people understand what it means to be a farmer in your community. We have farming in my husband’s family, and it is about your standing, your family history, and your fundamental identity. Scottish farmers could be looking down the barrel of huge changes, brought in by a Government that Scotland did not vote for, which is implementing a Brexit policy that Scotland did not vote for—[Interruption.]

Does Jenni Minto agree with the statement by Dr Morita-Jaeger, who is a senior research fellow at the University of Sussex, in which she points out that there is a wider issue that is not just about the producers? Dr Morita-Jaeger said:

“What is worrying on a much broader point is that the UK Government is pushing ahead with a trade deal without any public discussion about what trade policy, what kind of economy and what kind of national food production they are pursuing, if there is any strategy at all.”