Chamber and committees

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

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.

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?

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?

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.”

It is welcome to hear that the tracker will be available to MSPs and the public, but how does the minister intend to update parliamentarians and ensure that the work is subject to that level of scrutiny? Will there be reporting back to the committee on what we have just discussed, and does she intend to provide regular updates to the Parliament more broadly?

Good morning to the minster and officials.

I am interested in parliamentary scrutiny and how we ensure that scrutiny of ICESCR rights continues. First, I would like to understand whether an implementation plan or an action plan in response to the concluding observations will be brought forward. Is that the Government’s plan? If so, when does the minister expect to be able to publish that?

Is it your view that the tracker tool will have definitive actions in relation to legislative plans or policy changes?

Will the tracker tool be the tool that we will use to analyse the Government’s legislative programme?

That is something that the committee will certainly want to consider in respect of on-going scrutiny. That was useful.