Chamber and committees

I note the conciliatory tone that the cabinet secretary has adopted. I am especially pleased now that women’s voices will, eventually, be listened to. I add to the list, in addition to For Women Scotland, the likes of Sex Matters, Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, which has done such sterling work, LGB Alliance and so on.

Many of us noticed at the weekend the really quite shocking and disgusting language being used at some of the debates, including wishes to urinate and defecate on women. It is ironic that sex was not included as a protected characteristic in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, with the promise that there would be a misogyny bill. Can the cabinet secretary give any indication of when that bill will be introduced—I appreciate that it is under a different portfolio—and, fundamentally, whether it will have women as a sex class at its heart?

Exactly.

Thank you. Ian, do you want to come in? [Interruption.] You are on silent.

Thank you. Do you have any final words, Susan?

My couple of questions will help to bring that in. I have a quick question that I will invite Susan Love to answer first. How do you see the advent of artificial intelligence affecting skills provision in the future and what active thinking are you doing on that? We are talking about a very wide landscape and we do not know what we do not know but, as I have said previously, there is a juggernaut coming down the track and we need to try to factor it in in some way. Could you give me some reflections as to what you have thought about thus far? If you have not thought about it, that is also okay.

I appreciate that AI is a massive area. I am not at all surprised and I am entirely heartened to hear about the amount of work that is going on in your sector.

The reason why I am asking about this is to probe the Scottish Government’s work mapping a pathway that ensures skills provisioning across the piece and its ability to take cognisance of AI across the piece. Are you getting the sense, as we talk about the skills landscape and, in effect, being fit for the future, that consideration of AI is very much on the table in the way that it is in what you have outlined about your sector?

Okay. I will bring in the other three panellists with my next question, and then give you a chance, Susan.

I have been listening very intently to this wide-ranging session and part of the committee’s challenge is how to fashion recommendations. If I were to be cruel and ask what your top two asks are in terms of ensuring that our skills system works and is fit for the future of your sector, what would those top two asks be? You are smiling, Kellie. You have to come in.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I accept and concur with the warnings about tariffs, but, given how frequently tariffs have been talked about over recent weeks, was the member as surprised as I was that there was no strategic consideration or thinking in the spring statement about their potential impact?

I will carry on, if the member does not mind.

It is claimed that cuts to overseas aid are to fund a rise in defence spending. Yet, by comparing the composition of cuts and increases, we see that overseas aid is being cut by £3.2 billion in day-to-day spending, which counts against the main fiscal rule, whereas the rise in defence spending is very different, with only £0.6 billion in day-to-day spending. The planned increase in defence spending is over 90 per cent capital, which is completely different from current patterns of defence spending, in which only 35 per cent is capital. In other words, the net effect of the changes to overseas aid and defence is to contribute £2.6 billion towards restoring the headroom target.

Even after all that effort, the OBR gave the current plans only a 54 per cent chance of achieving a budget balance by 2029-30. Even that 54 per cent is predicated on an end to fuel duty freezes, which we all know will not happen.

The spring statement also shaved more off the earlier announced plans for departmental budgets. It is assumed that the UK Government administration budget will be cut by 15 per cent, but details on that are scarce. Previous Labour Governments made regular efforts to achieve governmental savings, but none ever materialised. Indeed, in almost all cases, expenditure on administration rose. As the Fraser of Allander put it, the spring statement is riddled with “optimism bias”.

There is a very large elephant in the room: how could we address the need to generate economic growth as a means to improve our economic health and tackle the international uncertainty that has been born of wars and Donald Trump’s tariffs? Perhaps a pre-spring statement survey from YouGov can help. Closer trade links with the EU were seen as the best option even by Labour voters, 65 per cent of whom thought it would pay greater economic dividends compared with a mere 15 per cent who favoured benefit cuts. The electorate seem to have a better grasp of economics than the chancellor.

Presiding Officer, you know that I favour using quotes to illustrate my points in a speech. To draw this time from the musical “Wicked”, Scotland is

“through with playing by the rules of someone else’s game.”

To quote the show again, I go as far as to say the fiscal event is a load of “old shiz”.