Chamber and committees

I will not, because I have a lot to get through and I am now in my second minute. I apologise to Ross Greer.

If we want to talk about priorities for the coming Scottish budget, we need to say that the real change to the budget process that we need is an end to the financial incompetence that has been the hallmark of the SNP Government. We need an end to the need for statements on emergency cuts because the SNP has failed to set an appropriate budget. Let us remember that those cuts have included £116 million from the health budget, a reduction of almost £19 million in the budget for mental health services, a £24 million cut to active and sustainable travel, and nearly £16 million in cuts to social justice funding.

I begin by respectfully acknowledging Jackson Carlaw’s bringing the motion to Parliament for debate. For him, and for Conservative colleagues, I appreciate that it is a very emotive subject, given not only the personal connections that many had to the victims of the bombing, but their long-standing connections to the families of those victims and to those who survived that terrible night.

We debate the anniversary as the current party conference season has just concluded. It has caused me to reflect, having attended my own party’s gathering in Liverpool just weeks ago, on the magnitude and the horror of what happened 40 years ago in Brighton. That has been recounted by Jackson Carlaw this evening in a very personal and powerful way, and I commend him for his speech.

I often reflect that political parties become something like an extended family—the good, the bad and the in-between—and it is hard to imagine those whom we come to care about so deeply being killed or harmed in such circumstances. Party conferences are part of the lifeblood of our democratic traditions, so when terrorism strikes at the heart of our democracy in such a direct way and claims innocent lives, it must be condemned. I think that, this evening, we stand united across the chamber in that condemnation.

Many members in the chamber will know that the troubles in Northern Ireland and the long road to peace are very personal to me and to my family. Tonight, we remember victims of that conflict: the thousands who were killed across these islands, many of whom were just innocent bystanders living their everyday lives.

Every corner was touched by those dark days: my own family in County Derry and County Tyrone, and the soldiers whose names are etched on the war memorials in towns and villages such as the one that I live in today. I join Jackson Carlaw in reflecting on the other anniversary that we have commemorated in the past week: the 50th anniversary of when John Hunter and Billy Forsyth from Barrhead were killed in the Guildford bombings, aged just 17 and 18. They were on their first deployment in the Army—just young, innocent men who were on a night out. There was, of course, the pain of the miscarriages of justice and the search for answers that followed. It is important to reflect on the pain that is caused—that pain is unimaginable, and I know that so many people still carry it today.

Decades ago, it was unimaginable that an end to the darkness was possible, but today the light of peace shines across Northern Ireland. There are—as we heard from other members—adults in their mid-20s who have known nothing else. Peace can be fragile, and it can be confusing. It requires compromises that can feel impossible to make, but for those young people, it must endure and succeed.

Tonight, we in the chamber should remember those people who made it possible. We should remember the forbearance of John Hume; the groundwork that was laid by John Major in the most difficult of circumstances; and the empathy of Mo Mowlam in delivering the Good Friday agreement.

The next step on that journey is reconciliation. Again, that is a hard road to embark on, and it is difficult for many to contemplate. However, I am sure that many will also agree that the examples that have been set in the work of people such as Jo Berry—the daughter of Sir Anthony Berry, who died in the blast—and Pat Magee, who planted the bomb, are an important starting point.

I leave the chamber with the words of the late Queen, on her historic visit to Ireland:

“These events have touched us all, many of us personally, and are a painful legacy. We can never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy.

With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all. But it is also true that no-one who looked to the future over the past centuries could have imagined the strength of the bonds that are now in place between the Governments and the people of our two nations, the spirit of partnership that we now enjoy, and the lasting rapport between us.”

I express my condolences to those still living in pain and with loss, and I offer my hope for an on-going commitment to peace, democracy and reconciliation across these islands.

Mr Gibson may have been young 25 years ago, but I was, in fact, a student 17 years ago. I remember campaigning in the 2007 election, when the SNP ran on a manifesto that promised to abolish and replace the council tax. Of course, the current First Minister was part of crafting that manifesto and has been part of the SNP Governments ever since, barring one year. Yet, 17 years later, not only has the council tax not been reformed but, as was reported yesterday, the Scottish Government’s joint working group on council tax reform has not even met in the six months since John Swinney became First Minister.

In a similar vein, as we have heard from my colleague Michael Marra, just last week, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation on the Scottish aggregates tax, which will replace the UK aggregates levy. That legislation makes use of tax-raising powers that were agreed as part of the Smith commission and passed in 2016, but it has taken a full decade to pass legislation on a tax that, in many fundamental ways, is the same as the prior UK equivalent.

I reference those issues because it is important to note that the Parliament has tax-varying powers but it takes time for any changes to be developed, implemented and come to fruition. Although we will have varying levels of disagreement in the debate today—and in the debates that will follow—with the Greens and other parties on the range of suggestions that are made in the Green motion today, ultimately, none of those changes will be brought about in time for the 2025-26 budget that we are discussing.

No. I have much more to say and I have only a short time.

We must have an end to the plugging of financial black holes that the Government created with £460 million-worth of ScotWind money. That money was supposed to be earmarked for investment in our future, but it is going to be used to repair the SNP’s black hole. We need an end to the waste and lack of transparency that we have seen. Senior Scottish Government sources have admitted that there is waste and a lack of transparency, and they have said:

“We haven’t looked under the bonnet properly in years.”

We really need an end to the sort of governance that we have seen in the recent past. The next Scottish budget needs to demonstrate a return to competence and an intention to grow the Scottish economy. We know that, had the economy grown at the same rate as the UK economy, there could be billions of pounds more to spend.

Of course, the motion does nothing to address the fundamental problems that poor economic growth is creating in Scotland’s finances. We need to ensure that growth is at the heart of what we do. That has been eloquently outlined by my colleagues, as it will be in their closing speeches as well.

There are no quick fixes for the economic mess that we face in Scotland after 17 years of an SNP Government and across the UK after 14 years of the Conservatives’ mismanagement of our public finances and crashing of our UK economy. However, that is the work that the new Labour UK Government has undertaken. It will take time and focus.

I fundamentally disagree with Mr Greer’s assessment—Mr Harvie said some of this in the debate yesterday as well—that there has been no change. The priority of the new UK Labour Government has been to pass changes to planning laws that will help to boost house building and infrastructure development. This week, we will see legislation for a new deal for working people—

—to increase the wages of working people in this country and to ensure that their work is stable and that we end fire and rehire and zero-hours contracts. It is not fair to make that characterisation of this Government, which is committed to change. It is time that the Scottish Government started thinking about the same.

Good morning to the cabinet secretary and her officials.

I have a question about the point that you made about the reconsideration of the UNCRC bill. The Supreme Court passed its judgment on the bill three years ago. I think that everybody knew that there was going to be a general election this year. Given the intervening three-year period, it would be useful to understand why it has taken until now to abandon the human rights bill. Does the cabinet secretary accept that organisations feel led up the garden path?

When did you come to the conclusion that you could not deliver what the stakeholders wanted, cabinet secretary?

Given that you had had three years of conversation, why did people such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Amnesty and those who were referenced in Maggie Chapman’s and Annie Wells’s questions react in such a visceral way?

I appreciate that my colleagues might well pick up on that point, so I will hand back to the convener.

Unfortunately, I was absent from the committee when we took evidence on these issues. However, obviously, I have read some of the evidence. There is much in the arguments that Maggie Chapman has made that is important and needs to be put on the record and explored, particularly the point about wider access to justice. I hope that the Government will reflect on those points and particularly the one about what it is fair to call a crisis in legal services. That is particularly the case with access to lawyers in criminal defence trials and the availability of lawyers through legal aid. I have had a number of constituency issues relating to the pursuers panel and pursuing solicitors who are at fault.

There is a range of issues that need to be looked at in the round, and I hope that the Government will take that on board. I have a degree of sympathy with Ms Chapman’s approach, but I am concerned about what would happen to the court system if we annul the instruments. I appreciate the costs that are involved and the arguments that have been made. I would be much more comfortable if the minister would say, in summing up, what further action she intends to take as a result of this discussion. However, I share the concerns that annulling the instruments might have a knock-on impact.