Chamber and committees

Will Mark Griffin give way?

This budget takes place at a time of enormous fiscal challenge for the Scottish Government in dealing with the cumulative impact of 14 years of austerity, the unwanted Brexit process, rampant inflation and increased borrowing costs. Some of those factors are a product of the problems on the international stage, especially the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east. However, most of them are a direct product of the deliberate policy and financial choices of the United Kingdom Conservative Government.

That context forces this Parliament to address some acute financial and policy issues, and the Scottish Government has been prepared to do that. The Government’s budget priorities of equality, opportunity and community deserve our support. On equality, tackling poverty and protecting people from harm is ably demonstrated by the commitment to the Scottish child payment, which is lifting children out of poverty. On opportunity, we are building a fair, sustainable and growing economy, with—crucially—Scotland’s wealth per head having increased by 10 per cent since 2007 in comparison with 6.4 per cent in the United Kingdom. On community, we are delivering efficient and effective public services, with greater investment in NHS recovery than would have been the case if Scotland had followed policy in the United Kingdom.

Despite the prevailing economic and fiscal conditions, the Scottish Government has taken decisions to expand the resources that are available to Parliament to spend. That has meant that Parliament is able to invest in the social contract that is so vital to people in Scotland. The existence of free access to higher education is an important part of that contract, as is access to 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare, which is more than double what was on offer when we came to office in 2007. The maintenance of free personal care for the elderly is a policy choice that has to be paid for, as is the availability of concessionary bus travel for over 60s, which has now been extended to young people under the age of 22.

In that respect, I met some pupils yesterday at Perth grammar school, who explained to me the significant increase in the opportunities that are available to them to participate in society as a result of the policy innovation that this Government has taken forward.

Those choices are available only because the Scottish Government is prepared to take the financial decisions needed to make them possible. Some of those have involved being prepared, over a number of years, to take a progressive approach to taxation. I commend the Government for doing that.

One of the acute challenges in the budget is the capital programme. The UK Government plans to reduce capital funding for Scotland by 10 per cent in real terms over the next five years. That is a very short-sighted policy approach that does not recognise the need for sustained investment to support long-term competitiveness. It also takes place at a time when the value of capital budgets has been eroded by soaring inflation. Private sector organisations tell me that in the past two years their construction costs have risen by 30 to 50 per cent. If that has happened in the private sector, why on earth does Parliament not believe that it is also happening in the public sector? To answer Jackie Baillie’s question about where the money has gone, the money for capital projects has been eroded and eaten up by inflation, which the Conservative UK Government has allowed to become rampant.

The Scottish Government has a commendable record on capital investment, with the successful completion of the Queensferry crossing, the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the M8, the M80, the M74, the Borders railway and the Airdrie to Bathgate line. I point out to Mr Griffin that, on average, the Scottish Government has built more social houses per annum than the previous Labour and Liberal Executive managed to do. I look forward to the budget continuing to support the dualling of the A9, a project on which the Government has already embarked and which it is committed to completing.

There will be capital projects that get into difficulty, such as the UK Government’s projects for frigates, aircraft carriers, and high speed 2, which are squandering money left, right and centre. The Tories do not have a leg to stand on as far as public finance management on capital projects is concerned.

That brings me neatly to where I intended to end on the Opposition. If the Conservatives’ plans were followed here, we would have to take £1.5 billion out of this budget. If Labour’s plans were followed, we would have to take £561 million out of the budget. I wish that I had some of the brass neck of the Conservatives, who come here and lecture us about public finances when every one of the members currently sitting on their front bench—Liz Smith, Murdo Fraser and Liam Kerr—told us to do what Liz Truss did, which resulted in wrecking the United Kingdom’s economy and public finances. I wish that I had a smidgen of the brass neck of that crowd.

In Scottish Labour’s tradition of making empty, vacuous speeches that are high on rhetoric and devoid of choices, Mr Marra has truly excelled himself today. His contribution perhaps competes only with the vacuous speech made by Jackie Baillie.

The budget is being undertaken in difficult circumstances, but, despite the gravity of that challenge, it will deliver formidable benefits to the people of Scotland. I urge Parliament to support the Government in its efforts to deliver equality, opportunity and community, in line with the values of the people of Scotland.

I warmly congratulate the minister on the work that she is doing in relation to tackling the question of depopulation in parts of Scotland. That goes to the heart of being part of a Government that acts in the interests of the whole of the country.

Will the minister commit to work with colleagues with different responsibilities to ensure that we link the work on tackling depopulation to the work on economic opportunity, so that, in some of the more isolated and remote areas of Scotland, we are able to create a growing population based on good, strong economic opportunities?

I could not agree more with my colleague Michelle Thomson. In all of this, it is the voice of the consumer that I am concerned about. It was the voice of the consumer that I was concerned about in 2006, when I sought a number of reforms and changes that would have strengthened the process then. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful on that occasion. On this occasion, I might be more successful in addressing the consumer interest issues that Michelle Thomson has correctly put to me.

I am interested in Michelle Thomson’s point about the accountability of the Lord President. I believe that there has to be some degree of accountability, but I am unclear about the mechanism in that respect. Can Michelle Thomson enlighten me as to what that is in the current environment?

I want to take Meghan Gallacher back to a comment that she made a little while ago, on our needing to get to a position where everybody agrees on this. Does she accept—this is, in a sense, a hypothetical question—that it is sometimes difficult to get all stakeholders to agree on something? Does she see it as a necessity that everybody has to agree on everything? Alternatively, do we need to apply some of the judgments that Mr Findlay and Mr Balfour have put on the record today about addressing the consumer interest while taking account of legitimate issues on which we might not get universal agreement?

On 2 May 1997, the day after my election as the member of the United Kingdom Parliament for North Tayside, my campaign office took my first call from a constituent, who sought an urgent meeting with me as his newly elected member of Parliament. My constituent had been working for some years with my predecessor, the Conservative MP Bill Walker, to resolve difficulties that he had experienced with the legal profession. My involvement with that case lasted for more than a decade. During that time, I observed my constituent assiduously and tenaciously pursue his concerns, with my active support, but in a way that consumed a huge part of his life.

That case, and others like it with which I have dealt, led me to take an active part in the proceedings on the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which this Parliament passed in December 2006. That bill was designed to improve the system for regulating the legal profession and to make it easier for complaints about poor conduct and service to be handled effectively. Eighteen years later, we find ourselves having to revisit those issues because significant concerns remain about the conduct of some elements of the legal profession and there is a lack of confidence in the current arrangements to adequately protect the consumer interest.

That is not where the historical comparisons end. During the passage of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the legal profession pushed back against some of the reforms. That is exactly what Parliament faces in today’s consideration of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. I believe that the Scottish Government is absolutely correct and absolutely justified to confront the issues in question and to propose reforms to the way in which the system operates.

Many strong words have been used to express opposition to the bill—we have heard some today. The most significant of the accusations is that the bill is a threat to the independence of the legal profession. I have no desire for the independence of the judiciary or the legal profession to be compromised in any way, and I believe that the minister has given assurances that such concerns will be adequately addressed in the later stages of the bill. However, concern about that point cannot be used as a reason for refusing to proceed with the reform agenda.

I am going to burst into violent agreement with Mr McArthur today, although it is not particularly new for Mr McArthur and me to agree on many things. There is a sensitive balance to be struck. However, the point that I am making in my speech—if I can cut to the chase—is that some of us here are not going to allow the consumer voice to be emasculated, as has happened in the past.

I am not going to raise specific cases of poor conduct: several have been well rehearsed in the public domain and we all know who they involve. What is clear is that the current arrangements have not adequately addressed those cases.

In their submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation, the senators of the College of Justice say:

“At present the legal profession is regulated by the Lord President. He is a regulator who is independent from government and parliament, and independent from those whom he regulates.”

I accept that that is the case, but what flows from that statement is that the Lord President must understand and address the fact that many of us deal with members of the public who are fundamentally dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the arrangements over which he presides.

The Government has introduced the bill to address the concerns of the consumers of legal services, who are our constituents and whom we represent. Those reforms are unpopular with some parts of the legal profession. The Government has indicated that it will lodge amendments after dialogue with the Lord President. Parliament is yet to see those amendments, although we have seen a letter from the minister that sets out the territory in which they will be set out.

That sums up the uncomfortable spot in which Parliament finds itself today. As the Government tries to reach agreement with the Lord President about how to reform the regulation of the legal profession while maintaining its independence, I encourage it to hold fast to the necessity of delivering measures that will effectively address the genuine and legitimate concerns that previous reforms have failed to address. Many of us will engage in the debate to ensure that we deliver reforms that do exactly that.

I am grateful, Presiding Officer.

I very much associate myself with how Mr Balfour has put that particular point. We must maintain the independence of the legal profession, but the consumer interest must also be strengthened. That is an objective that Mr Balfour and I perhaps share at this point in the debate.