Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary is making a powerful speech, and I completely associate myself with the sentiments of the Government on what is a disgusting bill. Does she agree that the Parliament can show a lead in welcoming those who are subject to immigration control to Scotland by taking practical steps within the restrictions of no recourse to public funds, for example by extending concessionary travel to all those who are under the asylum system?

It was a pleasure to take part in the inquiry into the use of the made affirmative procedure, which is unusual in the history of devolution and, indeed, in the UK legislative framework. We all agree that circumstances were exceptional, but now that we have an opportunity in the coming months to reflect on how the procedure was used, the report will help to guide the Parliament in deliberating on how we can improve our processes and our scrutiny of the quality of legislation. I thank the convener for his effective chairing of the committee and I thank the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. There is a symbiotic relationship in what we are doing to try to improve the Parliament and safeguard the quality of our legislation.

There will inevitably be tension between the Executive and the legislature. That was borne out by the witnesses who came forward. The convener mentioned Dr Ruth Fox’s historical perspective. There has been a decades long debate about the nature of the tension between the Executive and the legislature. This particular situation offers an insight into what can be a ratcheting process. Although Government ministers might virtuously say that they will happily surrender powers as soon as they are not necessary, the general trend has been of a one-way, ratcheting effect. Power is hoarded by the Executive and the legislature must actively recover that power and scrutinise the Government. We are proposing a decent balance. The made affirmative procedure may be unusual, but the report offers us an opportunity to build a new type of legislative framework, which is what some of the witnesses to the inquiry suggested.

In 1976, Lord Hailsham described the House of Commons as an “elective dictatorship”. The nature of the electoral system for the House of Commons means that it generally produces Executive control of the chamber. That is less likely in Holyrood because of our electoral system, which provides greater scope and opportunity for a balance of power that acts as an effective check on the Executive’s execution of power. That is borne out in committees, where Opposition members hold the balance of power. That offers a welcome and effective check on Executive control.

I note in particular Sir Jonathan Jones’s comment that

“we should go further and have a new statutory instruments act.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 14 December 2021; c 25.]

He also mentioned the “very outdated” Statutory Instruments Act 1946, which is probably getting past its sell-by date.

Perhaps this is a watershed moment and a point at which the Government can reflect more fundamentally on the suitability of existing procedures to deal with the modern threats and challenges that we face as a legislature. It could also consider the innovations that were mentioned by the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee with regard to the opportunity for the chamber to be used in a hybrid fashion. We know that there are huge opportunities for us to work in real time. Why can we not have live committees meeting in real time—committees of the whole chamber if necessary—to work with the Government to craft those bills and fast-track those legislative processes?

I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s comments on that, and I think that his words are important, particularly with regard to Professor Tierney’s point about the need for there to be a legislative code that underpins what is done, because we cannot simply rely on the good will of ministers and parliamentarians to make it all work—the good chap theory of government has very much been put to the test in recent years and we have to look at a better way of codifying what we do.

In that spirit, let us work together to enact some of the recommendations of the report and build a better legislative framework, because we can build a new system of statutory instruments that better reflects the pace of change that is needed in our democracy today.

Will the cabinet secretary accept an intervention on that point?

I am afraid that the Deputy First Minister offers a false choice. We welcome the measures that have been introduced, but they are not nearly enough to address the scale of the hardships that people face.

I am pushing the Government further on this, because, at the same time as we are talking about all the issues that are going on, Shell and BP are recording combined profits of more than £22 billion. That is why Labour has called for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, which is a proposal that, last week, MPs of the Deputy First Minister’s party did not even turn up to vote for in the House of Commons. The proposal would have saved every household in Scotland more than £200, and the lowest-income households would have been £600 better off. Why on earth did they not turn up?

Politics is about choices, but it is also about priorities. That is why Labour has called for a £400 Scottish fuel payment, targeted at Scotland’s hardest-hit families; a top-up to the Scottish welfare fund, to ensure that local authorities have the power and capacity to help people in need; and the cancellation of increases in water and rail prices. Each of those proposals is within the gift of this Government and within the available £238 million spending envelope that is additional. The budget does not go far enough to capitalise on that opportunity.

As was just announced, the cabinet secretary is offering a basic £150 credit or payment through the council tax system—a system that is already regressive and was supposed to be abolished more than a decade ago, and that does not work to target support.

The Scottish Government has been slow to get out of the traps on delivering for people, and it is allocating only half of the unallocated sum of £238 million. It could have done something more constructive or creative such as using the carers allowance supplement to target support more readily or using the child winter heating assistance to do as Labour has proposed. There is still £60 million to £70 million to be allocated—why are we not pushing the throttle to the absolute maximum to get that money into the pockets of the neediest families?

The £10 million that was announced for fuel security works out as just £16 for every person who is on universal credit or pension credit. It is not nearly enough to address the harms that people face when bills are skyrocketing by £700.

The Conservative Government in Westminster holds some of the answers, but we cannot pretend that the Scottish Government is doing everything that it possibly can to help people. If that were the case, it would not be ripping £250 million from Scotland’s councils next year, and Scotland’s care workers would be receiving a more substantial pay rise than 48p an hour, which is a paltry amount that will barely dent the scale of the cost increases that they face.

A tacit acceptance of Tory economic doctrine has led to the difficulties that Scotland’s economy faces today. More of the same will not fix it; I think that, deep down, the cabinet secretary knows that to be the case. My plea to all members is simple: stand up and be counted. The facts are clear: Scotland’s poorest will struggle to survive this year, and this budget does not do nearly enough to alleviate their hardship.

I am more than happy to adumbrate on that particular issue, because I am no friend of the Conservative Government—that much is for sure—but we have to hold both Governments to account. It is said that politics is about choices, and both Governments are failing to capitalise on, and make the most of, those choices.

Every member on this Government’s benches has a choice. Whether at Westminster or in this chamber, will members toe the line and make their constituents poorer, or will they stand up and say that enough is enough? Experience tells me that I would be foolish to hold my breath waiting for the latter.

I return to the cost of living crisis, which is the most pressing issue that we face. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said last week that those in low-income households will now spend

“16 per cent of their income after housing costs on energy bills.”

However, for middle-income households, that figure is just 5 per cent. The pain is not being felt equally.

Citizens Advice Scotland recently released an analysis that showed that more than a third of all Scots now find their energy bills unaffordable. Yesterday, Advice Direct Scotland revealed research that concluded that more than 70 per cent of Scots—more than two in three—are now worried about not being able to pay their gas and electricity bills this year.

At stage 1 of the budget, the cabinet secretary announced that she was giving councils the opportunity to raise council tax as an option for offsetting budget cuts. Given that her announcement of additional funding would account for only a third of the proposed cuts, does that not mean that any councils that do choose to increase council tax will wipe out, at a stroke, any additional support coming from that measure?

I, too, add my congratulations to the cabinet secretary on her delightful news. I wish her and her family all the best for the coming months. I am sure that the experience will be even more frightening than the budget but that it will go very well. [Laughter.]

I might as well be unequivocal: Labour will not support the budget today—I am sorry if that is not much of a baby shower gift. It is a timid, regressive and unambitious budget, which does not do nearly enough to alleviate the cost of living crisis, which no longer looms in the distance but is staring us directly in the face, as the cabinet secretary herself has said. We all have a duty to do everything that we possibly can to address the hardship that families face, but the budget does not do enough to address the real, substantive concerns that Scotland’s underresourced and underappreciated local authorities have articulated, and does nothing to reboot our economy after the pandemic.

The Government could have used this year’s budget to invest in upskilling, in the future of education, and in upgrading Scotland’s antiquated public transport infrastructure. We could have welcomed radical and transformative domestic policies today that would have lifted people out of poverty rather than compounding the hardship that they already face. We could have led the way on a post-Covid recovery plan that would have seriously addressed our economy’s lagging productivity, stagnant wage growth and substantial labour shortages.

Instead, we got a budget that will force councillors of all parties to cut £250 million from crucial local services, despite the inadequate sticking plaster that the cabinet secretary has announced. We got a budget that delivers a paltry 48p an hour pay rise for care workers and settles for a rise of almost 4 per cent on rail fares and a further increase of more than 4 per cent on water bills. Inflation is projected to hit 7 per cent this year and interest rates are likely to rise, so families are being hammered with an increase in food, fuel and energy prices, too.

We know that today is, essentially, a foregone conclusion. Members from the SNP and the Greens will rise to their feet and proclaim how excellent and transformative the budget will be, but the fact is that people will be worse off. The very people who we are sent here to represent will see their incomes hammered, their bills increased and—for those fortunate enough to have them in the first place—their savings diminished. It is really that straightforward.

Twenty-nine-year-old Callum Boulazreg is an in-patient at Gartnavel hospital. Visits from family are crucial to Callum’s care. However, despite changes to self-isolation periods for the general population being made from 6 January, Callum has been required to isolate for a full 10 days, and he has been required to do so no fewer than seven times in the past year. On each occasion, Callum’s progress is destroyed. He experiences the kind of cognitive setback that was previously observed in care homes and has been rightly condemned as a scandalous abuse of human rights. His family is desperate to help him.

Although the review that was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care earlier today is welcome, does the First Minister agree that that self-evidently excessive, and even cruel, practice must end in mental health wards, and that long-term patients have a fundamental right to social and physical contact with their families?

Scotland is the biggest fishing nation in the UK, yet five wealthy families control a third of Scottish fishing quotas and have minority investments in companies that hold a further 11 per cent. Therefore, almost half of the entire Scottish fishing quota is held by just five families. Does the minister agree that that concentration of private ownership of a natural common asset is completely unacceptable in the long run?