Chamber and committees

Nicky, do you have a view on that?

The report stresses clearly the importance of the workforce in delivering the Promise, and in particular the pivotal role of social workers. It calls for recommendations to be implemented, including that on the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities producing a joint workforce improvement plan, which was due in autumn 2024 and should now be delivered as a matter of urgency. It also says that

“Ways of working should be reviewed to ... drive out duplication and wasted effort.”

Given that the latest chief social work officer survey report from Social Work Scotland describes a crisis in local authorities in recruitment and retention, and given the ageing workforce and capacity issues, does the minister agree that social work and the wider workforce are vital in delivering the Promise?

I think that the words of support that the minister gave in her statement were the only mention of the workforce in the entire statement. When will the improvement plan be produced? What action will be undertaken to tackle the issues that are leading to depletion and burnout?

As I have said many times, and as has been well established, after 14 years of austerity, putting £5.2 billion into the Scottish budget is significant and has allowed us to look again at public services. That is well documented and was well rehearsed in the budget debate.

There was confusion between those on the front benches and those on the back benches. If we give the Government the benefit of the doubt, instead of listening to the glittering hit list of SNP back benchers, we can assume that the ministers believe that the £5.2 billion investment is a positive thing and is important for Scottish public services. If that is the case, the SNP surely must recognise that revenue-raising measures had to be taken in the UK budget and that they were sought in order to provide the resources for public services.

Yet the motion from the SNP Government says that some of those revenue measures should be cancelled. The SNP is, of course, perfectly entitled to advocate that position, but in doing so, it surely must level with the Parliament and the public and explain what alternative measures it would take to increase revenue. It is clear that the SNP has to either advocate for alternative tax rises, which I do not think we have yet heard happen—we have heard about vague notions of a basket of measures—or propose spending cuts. When challenged in the budget debate on that point, SNP back benchers wholly failed to answer—indeed, they seemed to suggest that independence was the solution. Again, they are perfectly entitled to that constitutional position, but I would gently suggest that, given the complete lack of an economic case for independence, the projected deficit on day 1 of becoming independent country, and the fact that independence would do absolutely nothing to deal with the reality of the here and now in relation to the debate that we are having, I do not really think that it is much of an answer at all.

Perhaps the Government front bench can provide a little more clarity than the back benches, although it, too, has opposed every revenue-raising measure in the UK budget. SNP MPs did not vote for any of them—indeed, they did not turn up to vote on the budget. Perhaps we might have had more clarity from the First Minister, as leader of the Government, but no—he advocated that the UK Government should match his own tax policies. However, the Fraser of Allander Institute published an analysis, just one month ago, showing that doing so would mean Scotland losing £636 million.

If that is the position of the SNP, it must be clear about that. If it is not willing to make tax rises in order to pay for public services, it must say, here and now, what it would cut. Would it be the health service, when we know that one in six Scots are on a waiting list? Would it be the housing budget, when the SNP is trying to correct mistakes that it made in the past in that regard?

As I said already, it is clear that not a single alternative is suggested in the SNP motion because the SNP simply does not have one. Its motion sits alongside the add-on amendment from the Conservatives, which fails to take one iota of responsibility for their 14 years in Government, during which they wrecked the economy—they left a complete mess behind and the new UK Labour Government had to pick up the pieces.

That is what the UK Labour Government is doing, and it is seeking to invest for the people of Scotland.

As I said at the outset of my speech, it is quite telling that there is such synergy and agreement between the SNP and the Conservatives today.

As Daniel Johnson and other colleagues have outlined, decisions in Government are not always easy, but they have to be taken to increase the public finances. Of course, we recognise the challenges that will exist, particularly for many third sector organisations, and we have to continue to work to support them. However, I point out again that, after almost 18 years of an SNP Government, our third sector is on its knees because of repeated failures to increase budgets and invest in multiyear funding so that third sector organisations have the clarity that would enable them to plan for the future.

We will not take any lectures from the SNP or the Tories, who are clearly conspiring today with no alternatives and no solutions. They have lodged their motion and amendment today simply for a political purpose.

If Mr Mason allows me to make some progress, I will come to him.

In the case of the stage 1 debate, it seems that there was, at best, confusion on the SNP benches about whether that record investment was positive, as suggested by the finance secretary and other members on the front bench, or whether it was, “charity” or “handouts”, as advocated by many SNP back benchers. I know that Mr Mason is no longer an SNP back bencher, but I will hear him if he wishes to make a contribution.

When I had the opportunity to close the stage 1 debate on the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill on behalf of Scottish Labour, I expressed that a number of things had become clear in the budget process—principally that the UK Labour Government had delivered record investment in the Scottish budget with the largest block grant in the history of devolution, adding £5.2 billion to the Scottish budget. The UK Government made that choice in its budget. It was a choice to bring to an end 14 years of austerity that we had under the Conservatives. It is curious that we are hearing quite a lot of accord between the SNP and the Tories today, but those of us who have been in Scottish politics for a long time should not be surprised by that.

I have a question about automaticity—I can never quite say that word correctly, so I apologise if I get it wrong. Debbie Horne mentioned the issue, and the committee talks about it a lot in the context of UK and Scottish social security. Has work been done on how that might happen? I understand that it is a complex process. Are there international examples of where it works seamlessly? We always hear about Estonia’s digital Government systems, which allow the free flow of information, but can you point us to any other examples?

I will not. I am not going to let the First Minister, who sat there and laughed at one in six Scots being on a waiting list, justify his position.

The reality is that people are being—

I am not taking the intervention.

We have the botched national care service, which had to be ditched because the Government would not listen, and people who have learning disabilities are being dramatically failed by the Government.

There is a permanent crisis in our NHS, and what has the answer from the Government been? We have had five plans for recovery for the NHS in less than four years—five plans in my time in the Parliament. We have had three First Ministers, three health secretaries, five recovery plans and a serious lack of new direction and change for the NHS.

The First Minister tells us that everything is going to be all right because he is here, but I do not think that the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, Unison and other trade unions—all those who have spoken with serious concern about the lack of ambition that the Government has for the NHS—are convinced by that. There is a lack of direction in the budget.

My colleague Mark Griffin outlined the challenges in housing, where the Government is simply replacing money that was lost through serious cuts to the housing budget and doing half of what it should do. Pam Duncan-Glancy outlined with clarity and in some detail the failure in education under the Government.

Of course, we know that it is not just—[Interruption.]

I am very grateful, Presiding Officer, because these are important points and it is important that the people of Scotland hear this debate.

We in the Labour Party are concerned about the short-termism and short-term decisions from the Government. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has criticised the lack of direction on tax policy. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has repeatedly expressed concerns about delays in publishing key financial documents, such as a medium-term financial strategy. The Fraser of Allander Institute has warned of risks stored up and the potential for further emergency measures being needed in the next financial year, although I guess that we should have expected that, as it is an annual occurrence with this Government.

Today is not a new day for the First Minister or the Government. After 18 years, they have lost their way and they have lost ambition for the people of Scotland. It is clear that, after 18 years of such leadership, one budget cannot change course or provide a new direction for our public services. Indeed, it appears that the Government does not recognise that a new direction is required at all, so the only way that we can change direction in Scotland is with a new Government.

In addition to the communities that Pam Gosal mentioned, in places including Barrhead and Bishopbriggs in my region, the Bank of Scotland has the last remaining branch on the high street and so is the last bank in the town. Does the minister recognise the particular pressure and disadvantage that is put on local communities by there being no banks left in their areas? Although I understand that the Scottish Government cannot compel banks to keep branches open, will he impress on the Bank of Scotland, in his discussions with it, the importance of access to cash in those communities?