Chamber and committees

I associate myself with Stephen Kerr’s comments. Britain has an important role in the world in what is often termed “soft power”. His Majesty the King has very clearly demonstrated his support for Ukraine and his desire to play a role in the diplomatic process as we move forward.

As I have mentioned, we must now reckon with fundamental challenges as the situation in and around Ukraine takes on a new phase. In that spirit, I greatly welcome the First Minister’s statement and comments yesterday, particularly the comment that there has been a shift in the need to prioritise our security interests, and his willingness for the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government in whatever support is required to drive forward the diplomatic and defence efforts that the Prime Minister is taking forward.

In that sense of working together, it is important that we continue to focus on how Scotland can play its role. Many direct questions that were asked in the chamber yesterday deserve further explanation. For example, my colleague Paul Sweeney touched on the aerospace, defence, marine and space industry leadership group in Scottish Enterprise, and called for a re-examination of the investment rules of the Scottish National Investment Bank on how we might drive forward defence production in Scotland.

Presiding Officer, I am conscious of the time. This has been an important debate. For the rest of our lives, none of us will forget the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian servicemen and women, and the people of Ukraine, over the past three years. They have shown an unshakeable determination to defend their lives, their country, their way of life and the total commitment in that country to the values of democracy and the rules-based order that we all, as democrats, hold dear. They are an example to follow, and I hope that the decisions that we take in the coming period will honour their example.

It never fails to amaze me that Kevin Stewart cannot bring himself to support a publicly owned energy company that is being invested in by the new UK Government, after years of inaction from the Tories and a lack of investment in that. Mr Stewart well knows the potential that will be unleashed for jobs in the supply chain and in the development of new offshore wind—and for jobs in Aberdeen, which Michael Marra rightly described as the energy capital of the UK and of Europe. It would be good to hear Mr Stewart come with the positivity that George Adam said in his contribution that he was looking for.

It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that other parts of the UK have also faced chronic underinvestment in 14 years of Conservative austerity. It was disappointing to hear the minister talk about Liverpool and Tyneside as though those communities do not deserve investment and support from the new UK Government.

Today, I was speaking to someone in Manchester who contrasted the growth and investment in Scotland with that in Manchester with Andy Burnham as mayor. Manchester has fewer powers than this Parliament has, but there has been a huge amount of growth and development in those communities, and work has been done hand in hand with them.

In the Glasgow city region, we have not seen similar growth and expansion. That is why I made my point about Glasgow airport. I agree that Glasgow airport is a key part of our infrastructure and a key part of what we can do to get growth, but the fact of the matter is that it was the SNP Government that cancelled the Glasgow airport rail link, back in 2007, when it took office. There is another proposal from SPT to develop a plan for a light rail link to the airport. The Government has been in power for 18 years, yet people cannot get a train to Glasgow airport. That is extraordinary. The Government needs to reflect on the action that it has taken—or, rather, its inaction.

Today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, and I think that I can chalk most of this afternoon up for my penance, which is useful.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the need for investment, both public and private, in Scotland to achieve the goals on growth, on which I think that there is a consensus across the chamber. I welcome having time this afternoon to set out much of the investment that has happened since July, the UK Labour Government’s focus on it and its importance to growth.

I begin by agreeing with at least part of the Government’s motion: there are high-growth sectors in Scotland and there is scope for them, and for many others, to go further and faster. Our energy, technology, whisky and manufacturing industries—to name just a few—possess world-class innovation and have the potential to drive significant economic growth in Scotland.

I was struck by something that George Adam said in response to my intervention, which was:

“Let us leave the negativity to others”.

It seems that those on his party’s front bench did not get that memo when they were developing the motion for this afternoon. This is a Scottish Government debate; the Scottish Government chose the topic and drafted the motion, yet it did not include in it any details of real, tangible progress that it could be making to attract greater investment into our economy, and it has failed to provide a pathway for meaningful action.

Instead, it seems to me that we are back to the same old grudge and grievance debates in this place, in which the Government throws up its hands if it feels like it is not getting exactly what it wants. I thought that those days were behind us, because we were promised a new era of working together with the UK Government. It is very disappointing to see the Government motion react to headline investments and ignore, as usual, the detailed and significant investment that is coming to Scotland.

We have heard much about that this afternoon. Today, we had the announcement of the £55 million expansion of the Port of Cromarty Firth, which will make it the first port in the UK that is able to make offshore floating wind turbines on site and at scale. That will be backed by a grant from the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, which will allow it to attract match funding from private investors.

That investment from FLOWMIS joins a long list of investments to Scotland, which are worth hearing about once again. They include removing connectivity black holes through project gigabit and the shared rural network, boosting 4G coverage in the Highlands and Islands, funding two electrolytic hydrogen projects in Cromarty and Whitelee, confirming £25 million of funding for the 10-year investment in the Argyll and Bute growth deal, and extending the innovation cluster in the Glasgow city region for a further year. That is without mentioning the headline investments in GB Energy—which, with its headquarters in Aberdeen and the investment that goes along with it, is a clear statement of intent—or the £200 million committed by the Prime Minister—

I, too, represent the community to which George Adam refers, including Glasgow airport. Does he share my concern that it is possible to get a direct train from Glasgow central station to Manchester airport but not possible to get a direct train to Glasgow airport, which is a significant challenge to achieving the growth that we need in our area?

Those arguments were well rehearsed at the time. It was abundantly clear that the Scottish Government abandoned Glasgow airport. Quite frankly, that is what happened. We have seen a lack of investment in and support for Glasgow airport.

I think that the motion is disrespectful to the good partnership working that has taken place between the Scottish and UK Governments over the past seven months, which has represented a constructive change and has sought to deliver for people and communities who need investment. I am thinking, in particular, of the partnership working that we have seen on a sustainable future for Grangemouth, the Grangemouth industrial cluster and the wider Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal.

We need to be clear about the fact that the UK Labour Government is taking what are sometimes very difficult and tough economic decisions and making investments that are necessary after what has been a lost decade in Scotland’s economy, while the SNP and the Tories seem to want to continue the story of grudge and grievance. I do not think that that does a service to the people of Scotland.

It is clear that the job is not done. As I have said, we cannot rectify a lost decade after only seven months in office, but the new UK Government has made a significant start. Earlier, I mentioned my disappointment about the return to grudge and grievance that the motion represents, in spite of the significant co-operative work that has been undertaken by the two Governments. It is important that the Scottish Government reflects on that. I hope that this afternoon’s debate is a momentary blip in the constructive relationship and the debates that we have in the chamber.

I will just finish this point, because I want to ensure that the complete list is on the record. The Prime Minister committed to £200 million for Grangemouth.

I will, once I have made this point.

The point about airports was well made. The expansions at Heathrow and Gatwick—which I think were tentatively welcomed by the First Minister—will have a knock-on impact on the supply chain for our very important industries, such as Scottish salmon.

I am pleased to speak tonight and to lend my voice, in support and solidarity, to the defiant people of Ukraine. I thank Colin Beattie for securing the debate and for all the work that he has done in establishing the cross-party group on Ukraine, of which I am a deputy convener. That has been a great innovation in this Parliament, allowing all parties to come together and to stand in solidarity with the consul and with representatives of the Ukrainian community in Scotland. I think that we are doing valuable work, and I hope that the Ukrainian community feels that value. I am grateful to Colin Beattie for his leadership on that.

No discussion of events—not only in the past three years but since the annexation of Crimea in 2014—can be had unless we recognise that Russia is the aggressor and that Ukraine is the victim. That is not a dispute between two equals; it is a war of aggression and of Putin’s imperialism. We have heard that plain and simple fact resolutely from members across the chamber. In that context, it is right to echo the sentiments that have been expressed by the Prime Minister and by colleagues from all parties and Governments in the past three years. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and we will continue to do so for as long as it takes. I also express my gratitude to all those who have welcomed Ukrainians into their homes and communities.

In the many debates that we have had in support of Ukraine, I have reflected the efforts across Renfrewshire, which Neil Bibby referenced, and East Renfrewshire—in particular, those by faith communities and groups that have come together to set up a welcome hub for people from Ukraine. That has been vitally important, and long may it continue.

I will focus this evening, as many colleagues have done, on the events of the past week. The latest developments on Ukraine demonstrate that we face a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our country and our continent. Global instability, Russian aggression in Ukraine, increasing threats from malign actors, climate change and rapid technological disruption have all contributed to a rapidly deteriorating security landscape. It is clear that we must protect Ukrainian sovereignty as we seek to resolve the reality with which Ukrainian people have lived for three years and longer. In that context, it is right that the UK steps forward as a leading partner to ensure our continental and global security.

In working with Ukraine to come to what we hope might be a just and lasting peace, there can be no getting away from the volatile shifts in the halls of diplomatic power. As things change rapidly, it can be all too tempting to react to every piece of news by taking to social media, or expect a running commentary from the many Government representatives and diplomats who are involved in difficult and intense negotiations. However, it has been refreshing and reassuring to see the United Kingdom Government, led by the efforts of Keir Starmer, reject that approach, roll up its sleeves and take the lead in serious diplomatic efforts to pull together our allies. Diplomacy often requires conversations and statements that are deeply uncomfortable—there is no getting away from that—and there will be many more of those to come in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Martin, is it your sense that it would be useful to have more detail on what is expected of local authorities in terms of what they offer currently? One of the challenges in my work is that easy-read communication is not offered as standard across many agencies. If somebody walked into Aberdeenshire Council, would they be able to get that quickly, or would it take some time? Are those the areas that you have identified where we need a bit more standardisation?

That was helpful. Andrew, do you want to come in?