Chamber and committees

I begin by congratulating all the members who have, this afternoon, made their first speeches in the chamber, including Dawn Black, Alyn Smith, Zen Ghani and Gary Bouse. All spoke passionately about their communities and predecessors. I refer to Gary Bouse’s speech in particular, because his constituency is part of the region that I represent. He is absolutely right to mention the jobs in Falkirk and concerns about the number of industries and businesses that have closed in recent times. I welcome the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis on that issue, because we know how important it is to the people of Falkirk.

I come to the crux of the debate. Two hours on, the Government has not properly explained how it plans to reform public services in Scotland. If it is not about cuts, what is it about? Is it savings, efficiencies or streamlining? I know those terms well, and I know this story. When I was a councillor, we were instructed to pursue cuts every year in order to agree a budget. After all, balancing the books is a legal requirement. Councillors in the chamber—past and present—will know that.

However, the Scottish Government has had no qualms about taking an axe to local government budgets over many years. Although ministers in the chamber passed the sentence, it was councillors who were left to carry out the difficult decisions, reduce services and manage the consequences in our communities. That is finally catching up with the Scottish National Party. As Michael Marra said, after nearly two decades in government, the SNP has finally been forced to confront the consequences of its decisions. The looming £5 billion black hole in Scotland’s finances will simply not disappear by itself, especially when the Government spends money as though it is going out of fashion.

The Government is now in the same position that it has put councillors in year after year, and it has only two realistic options: cut spending or raise taxes. Instead, it appears to have chosen a third route: rebrand the problem as public service reform. As Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out, the new cabinet secretary has already insisted that public service reform does not mean cuts. I hate to break it to the cabinet secretary, but “public service reform” is precisely the kind of language that councils have long been encouraged to use when trying to soften the blow of reductions in services. We have been here before. Two decades on, we are still hearing the same promises about joined-up services, prevention, efficiency and transformation. That is why I asked the cabinet secretary earlier what is going to be different this time. What is the point of holding a debate when there is nothing concrete before the Parliament to scrutinise? Given the SNP’s track record on delivery, why should anyone take it at its word?

The Scottish Conservatives have attempted to be constructive by making practical proposals that could help to deliver meaningful public service reform. We believe that it is necessary and the right thing to do, but any serious discussion must also address the ever-rising welfare bill. If the Government is genuinely committed to reducing demand on public services and creating a more sustainable system, it cannot continue to ignore one of the fastest-growing areas of public expenditure. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has made it clear that spending on social security is rising more quickly than funding provided through the block grant adjustment. By 2026-27, the gap will exceed £1 billion, and it is expected to grow further.

The question that the Government never seems willing to answer is this: if the benefits system is costing more every year, why are so many of the underlying problems facing Scotland getting worse? Every pound that is absorbed by the spiralling welfare budget is a pound that is not being spent to tackle the root causes. The result is a vicious cycle—less investment in opportunity, more economic inactivity, greater reliance on benefits and ever-growing pressures on public services and finances.

No one is arguing against supporting those who genuinely need help. However, when we look at compassion, we also need to look at whether the current system is delivering the outcomes that people deserve.

I am in my final few seconds. During the debate, we have heard a few different phrases to describe the cabinet secretary—we have had “Super Ivan”, “Ivan the Great” and “Ivan the Terrible”, but time will tell which version of the cabinet secretary will be his legacy in this role.

16:45

Over the past 10 years, there have been three reviews of maternity and neonatal services. I do not believe that there is any joined-up thinking in this Government about its approach and how it will improve those services for mums and their babies.

I want to raise an issue about the number of beds that are available for parents in neonatal wards. The work that was undertaken by Bliss Scotland shows that, for every 10 children who need specialised care, there is only one bed for parents who want to stay overnight. I worked with the previous minister on the issue and I am willing to work with the cabinet secretary. Will she give an update today on the number of beds that are currently available for parents? Will she ensure that there is a positive change in the number of those beds, to ensure that parents can stay with their babies who need specialised care?

The Court of Session has just ruled against West Lothian Council in my region in finding that providing multi-user unisex toilets in a primary school amounted to indirect sex discrimination against female pupils. Therefore, will the Scottish Government implement the EHRC guidance in full without further delay and work directly with councils to ensure that they are not falling foul of sex discrimination law?

We are all aware of the negative impact that mobile phones can have on young people, from bullying to disruption and violence in our classrooms. The Scottish Conservatives have been calling for a ban on mobile phones in classrooms for quite some time. Does the cabinet secretary accept that teachers, parents and pupils have waited long enough for action? Does she understand that some might feel frustrated that, instead of action now, we have yet another consultation, which could mean that the can is kicked down the road?

I thank Michael Marra for giving way. Surely, given how much a policy of expanding childcare will cost, we need more incentives to get people into work and grow the tax base, which will allow us to look after those services, if there is consensus to do so.

I welcome the cabinet secretary back to her portfolio, which has been extended, and make a plea that Scotland’s housing emergency be prioritised. Analysis of the previous first homes fund found that around 68 per cent of buyers had household incomes that were above the Scottish median, which meant that the policy did not benefit people on lower incomes. We need immediate relief if we are to get people on to the housing ladder and tackle Scotland’s housing emergency. Does the cabinet secretary not agree that we can help those people now by backing the Scottish Conservatives’ idea to abolish land and buildings transaction tax for people buying their first home, because that would encourage aspiration and help people to get on to, and move up, the property ladder?

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome you to your post. I also welcome the cabinet secretary to her post.

I will begin on a point of consensus with the Scottish Government: I believe in expanding childcare provision across Scotland.

Throughout the previous parliamentary session, I repeatedly called on the Government to expand the early learning and childcare from nine months onwards for working parents. In 2023, I believed that those calls had finally been heard when the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, announced a pilot to expand childcare to children from nine months onwards. However, since that announcement, despite my trying repeatedly to establish what progress has been made, there has been little to no clarity on that point.

I believe that there is an opportunity to reset relationships and work constructively across parties to find solutions. First, however, the Scottish Government must provide answers and explain—not just to parents but to the Parliament—why it failed to deliver the expansion that it had previously promised. Right now, too many parents simply do not trust that the Government can deliver.

During the election campaign, I had the privilege of serving on a cross-party steering group led by Pregnant Then Screwed Scotland. Together, we discussed how childcare could better support parents, particularly mothers, and explored practical ways to improve the current system.

One statistic that I have pulled out today from the state-of-the-nation survey that Pregnant Then Screwed Scotland conducted should concern the Scottish Government: 66.8 per cent of Scottish mothers did not believe that the Scottish Government would deliver on expanding childcare provision.

Behind that statistic is a simple reality. Parents feel that the system is not built around modern day life. Parents are doing everything that they can to stay in work, provide for their children and build a future for their families, but childcare costs are making that harder.

Will the member take an intervention?

Does Claire Baker believe that we need to look again at the guidance that the Scottish Government wrote and which local councils implement, as it has led to these problems?

Will the member take an intervention?