Chamber and committees

[Made a request to intervene.]

Will Stuart McMillan take an intervention?

Independent analysts have shown that the Scottish child payment is resulting in people choosing not to take on extra shifts, giving up work entirely or turning down pay rises. Would the member, therefore, join me in imposing a two-child benefit on the Scottish child payment?

I thank our newbie for giving way during his maiden speech. Will he now take the opportunity to apologise to the tens of thousands of oil and gas workers in the north-east who have lost their jobs as a direct result of this Government’s failure to support our oil and gas sector?

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

It is 77 miles from Sanquhar to Stranraer, which is a journey that takes a minimum of two hours by car or at least four hours by bus. Given that my constituents will be expected to make that journey to access the GP walk-in centre in Stranraer, does that not expose the policy as being a pre-election ploy that was designed to distract attention away from a primary care system in crisis?

Will Mr Flynn take another intervention?

As other members have done, I welcome Stephen Flynn to the chamber and thank him for his maiden speech. He posed the rhetorical question as to why he had come here. Some people thought that he came here because he wanted to be a very large fish in a very small pond after his period in Westminster—the SNP’s very own Andy Burnham. I think that he got off to a good start here. Although neither a sprat nor a minnow, he is perhaps not the great white shark that he hoped to be in these waters, and I think that there is still some work to do. What he could and should have done during his speech was apologise for some of the issues that arose in the previous parliamentary session and seriously impeded Scotland’s ability to compete globally and grow our economy. Principally, he could and should have apologised for the ongoing presumption against oil and gas, which, month after month, is resulting in thousands of jobs being lost in the sector.

He said—and other SNP MSPs have repeated this—that we introduced the energy profits levy. Yes, we did—during a period of excess profits. However, let us bear in mind that the SNP wanted us to go further and faster, and that, when Labour came into office, it sought to extend the levy when we were ready to wind it down. Only one party in the chamber is committed to growing our economy through growing our oil and gas sector, and that is the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

Mr Flynn could and should have apologised for the damage that was done to the hospitality sector during the previous parliamentary session, when, in budget after budget, the SNP took funds from Westminster that were intended to provide rates relief to the struggling hospitality sector and, instead, diverted them into other areas.

Mr Flynn could and should have apologised to our island communities because a corruption of the procurement process meant that many of our communities are still deprived of those lifeline ferries, and because of the economic damage that that will do as we go into high season again. He could and should have apologised to the Scottish licensing and brewing sector for the damage that was done through, for example, the botched deposit return scheme and the ongoing problems caused by the seeds of doubt that the SNP is sowing in that sector.

As the minister sits down with businesses across Scotland, what he could and should do if he wants to restore their trust in Scotland as a place in which to invest is listen seriously to their concerns, because I think that their concerns are very clear. When it comes to recruiting the best staff from the United Kingdom and around the world, the damaging tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK is a fundamental issue. When it comes to the skills mismatch in our economy—which, year after year, the SNP has ducked—he could sit down with businesses and horizon scan to see what Scotland’s colleges should be producing. When he talks about deregulation and the planning system, rather than simply giving us an open and honest answer to, “Let’s talk about it,” the SNP, after 19 years in government, should have some big and bold ideas. When it comes to removing red tape, the SNP could and should do what it has said it would do in the past, which is reduce the size of the state. We will watch closely to see whether Ivan McKee can do that.

We heard some other interesting contributions today. Lloyd Melville, who is not currently in the chamber, quite rightly identified the huge pool of capital that we could have within Scottish public sector pension funds. I encourage the minister to look to Quebec and Ottawa to see how global investment is coming to Scotland through, for example, those Canadian state teachers’ pension funds.

Ultimately, none of this is rocket science. As my colleague Rachael Hamilton said, a low-tax, deregulated economy, in which we take Government off businesses’ backs and start to deliver true economic growth, is within our reach. However—I say this to Mr Harvie—it requires a realisation that economic growth is good in and of itself. That is something that we should continue to bang the drum for. Ultimately, if we want Scotland to prosper now and into the future, we have to tackle the burden of taxation and the burden of red tape. We have to ensure that the Government is off businesses’ backs. We should support our home-grown businesses, such as our hospitality sector and Scotland’s oil and gas sector.

Before the cabinet secretary closes, I ask him to respond to Sir Tom Hunter, who said:

“The current state of our nation does not reflect our potential. I have never heard so much disquiet amongst business leaders paying yet more and more tax with poorer and poorer outcomes.”

Is that the kind of Scotland that Stephen Flynn wants to build on?