Chamber and committees

That is useful.

On reflection, my question probably goes back to an earlier point, which was that we need to analyse and understand causes and effects and then think about what action could be taken, which is of interest to the committee. Jill Wood or Lindsey Millen, do you want to add anything on multifaceted reporting? Lindsey, I saw you nodding during some of the previous contributions.

I started by asking about data. I know that CRER has also commented on the need for social security data in order to understand the poverty gap if folk are not in work. Do you think that we need a broader suite of data in that space?

Good morning. I asked the previous panel of witnesses how we might extend pay gap reporting, particularly in terms of ethnicity and disability, and I am particularly interested in getting a broader view on that.

With regard to older people and people who are ageing in work, there is often something of a disability gap that can be tested and might develop over time. It would be good to get a sense of whether you think that we should extend the reporting to consider disability within that pay gap. It would also be interesting to hear witnesses’ views on ethnicity in that regard. Pauline Nolan, could you start?

Your last point is interesting, because in the earlier session, the point was raised that although we have data sets and quite a lot of information, and people are very often good at reporting—although not perfect, as Pauline Nolan suggests—if everybody reports but there is a lack of action, the implementation gap then becomes the issue.

This is maybe a broader question about data for everyone, but do you agree that there is a lot of data, but the challenge is the deep-dive interrogation of that data?

I will pick up on the point about the Scottish Government pointing to interaction with the UK Government. In the discussion about the Employment Rights Bill, there is a commitment to address the disability pay gap. Do you sense that the Scottish Government is keen to see the outcome of that? Was that the reason that it gave you?

Thanks.

I will not take a lecture on tax from the Conservatives, who placed the highest tax burden on working people in more than a generation. The issue has been well debated in the chamber. If Mr Kerr’s party had made different decisions, we would be in a very different place and the £5.2 billion funding for Scotland would not, in fact, be available.

I said at the outset that I feel that the Scottish Government’s motion is fundamentally unserious. The Scottish Government wants to pretend that the new UK Labour Government has done absolutely no work to begin to tackle the issues and to look at them in a serious way and in detail. We must take a moment to reflect on the actions that have been taken. We should all welcome the UK Labour Government’s recent announcement that it is expanding the £150 warm home discount scheme, so that 220,000 more Scottish households will receive help to reduce their energy costs. That scheme provides energy bill support to the people who are most in need. The result of that UK Labour Government intervention is that one in every five families in Scotland is now eligible for help with their bill. That is a total of 500,000 households.

The UK Government is not just expanding that lifeline scheme; it is also delivering an extra £41 million, through consequentials, to the household support fund, to provide support. The cabinet secretary and I have had many debates about that, because it took quite some time to understand what the Scottish Government’s plans were for those Barnett consequentials and the difference that they can make in supporting people in Scotland.

I have already mentioned in my exchange with Stephen Kerr the £5.2 billion that was allocated to the Scottish budget at UK level, which has sought to end what was, quite frankly, a period of Conservative decline and inaction.

I am pleased to follow Liz Smith. Although I did not agree with everything that she said in her speech—as colleagues might have guessed—I think that she made some important and serious points, as she always does in her speeches. I believe that she will be missed when she leaves the Parliament at the election next year. This is the first opportunity that I have had to say that to Liz Smith, so I want to put that on the record as we begin the debate this afternoon.

A lot of what Liz Smith said about the seriousness of the debate and the seriousness of the issues is important and pertinent. There can be no more important issue that we debate in the chamber than the cost of living crisis and the pressure that it puts on the people we all seek to represent.

So, I am slightly disappointed that the tone of the Government’s motion seems to be somewhat unserious in many respects. In recent weeks, there has been a return to the sort of grudge-and-grievance politics and debates in the chamber that we were all too familiar with in the earlier years of this parliamentary session. When the new UK Labour Government came to power last summer, we made it very clear that we did not want to play our part in those grudge-and-grievance politics and squabbling. It was about coming together and trying to work together to further improve the lives of the people of Scotland. There have been very positive steps in that regard, particularly in the field of energy and energy security, with Governments working together to tackle the challenges of energy prices. I want to make it clear that I welcome the opportunity to discuss what more we can do across the UK and in the Parliament to ensure that we support our constituents as they struggle through the cost of living crisis.

We cannot get away from the context in which we meet this afternoon. We know that many of the shocks that the energy market has experienced result from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the challenges that exist therein, as has been outlined, including the volatile reaction of world leaders—not least President Trump—and the on-going issues that the Prime Minister and others are having to deal with on an international scale.

Douglas Lumsden knows that I believe in an energy mix and that we must continue to use the resources that we have in Scotland. I also believe that it is vital that we open up the potential for a just transition away from oil and gas, while taking the resources opportunities that are available to us, not the least of which is nuclear power, which I will come on to talk about.

Although Ukraine is a huge part of the context, we cannot get away from the actions of the previous UK Government. Liz Smith referenced Liz Truss—I feel that she knew that members would mention her mini-budget. We continue to live with the effects of the decisions that were taken without due consideration of the impact that they would have on borrowing rates, general finances and the economy. We are still living with those shocks. It is absolutely the case that we can argue the point about the inheritance of the Labour UK Government, but we cannot get away from the fact that those decisions are having a knock-on impact, as we meet today.