Chamber and committees

I will maybe talk in a moment about some of the financial challenges that the Government faces as a consequence of the interventions of people such as Liam Kerr and their support for the actions of Liz Truss and her associates.

All the elements that I mentioned are critical to ensuring the best start in life for our children.

The second key policy benefit of ELC expansion has been the positive stimulus to economic growth and opportunity. The expansion itself has created new employment opportunities, but the provision has also enabled more parents to consider entering the labour market. At a time when we are still experiencing historically low levels of unemployment, which is welcome, and when the labour market is very tight due to the folly of Brexit, which is very unwelcome, it is vital that we take every measure to expand the labour market.

Thirdly, the expansion of early learning and childcare is part of a range of policy measures that are designed to combat child poverty, and which have been boosted in recent years by the introduction of the Scottish child payment. Unique in the United Kingdom and having been delivered during a cost of living crisis, the Scottish child payment is quite literally saving some of the most vulnerable citizens in our society today from destitution.

I support the Government’s efforts in expanding early learning and childcare and in ensuring that major policy development is having a multifaceted impact on a range of policy areas. I encourage the Government—I welcome what the First Minister had to say on this—to ensure that the measures that are taken forward maximise the flexibility that is available to families, and that they are delivered in a way that suits families, in order to help to stimulate greater economic participation and growth.

One of the best projects that I have seen that puts those aspirations into practice is the MsMissMrs project in Maryhill, which is in the constituency of my friend Bob Doris. There, that women’s empowerment organisation creates economic opportunity through childcare provision. That demonstrates how third sector partners can be involved to make that happen by listening carefully to the thoughts and input of those who are most affected by the reforms.

The proposals to expand early learning and childcare are taking place at a time of enormous financial strain on the public finances. Reforms of this type have to be paid for. It is worth noting that we are meeting today on the first anniversary of the election of Liz Truss as leader of the Conservative Party. I am reminded that the Conservatives here demanded that the Scottish Government follow the policy direction that was advocated by Liz Truss. They should look now at the damage that it has done. Look now at the perilous position of public finances. Look now at the very real hardship that is being faced by people who are wrestling with the massive impact on their lives of the increases in interest rates that have been foisted upon them by the Conservative Party and its folly. Look now at the damage that has been done.

In that context, the Scottish Government has taken tough decisions on tax by asking people who are on higher incomes to pay more in taxes in order to enable investment in our public services. It has taken measures including early learning and childcare expansion that boost economic growth. In answer to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question, I note that recent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the poorest 30 per cent of families in Scotland, are, on average, £2,000 better off each year as a result of this Government’s choices; however, almost unbelievably, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland now tells us that he does not support that progressive approach to taxation. What an absurdity with which to face the people of Scotland at this time.

There are tough choices to make in government. The fact that this Government has been prepared to make them has enabled the expansion of early learning and childcare, which will be good for our children and good for our economy. I encourage Parliament to give its enthusiastic support to the programme for government, which includes those essential provisions.

I understand the significance of the points that Mr Cameron makes. Indeed, in my short last tenure as finance secretary, I responded to a significant request from the King’s theatre in Edinburgh for Government funding to complete its restoration programme, which I am delighted that we were able to take forward. However, does Mr Cameron not understand the irony of the contrast between the remarks that he makes about the constraints on the public finances and the approach to public expenditure that the Government that he supports in the United Kingdom has taken for the past 13 years? I know that he looks at the issues carefully, but does he not identify the irony of asking us to spend more money when he supports a United Kingdom Government that puts in place a fiscal framework that constrains the Scottish Government’s expenditure?

Will the member give way?

I do not recognise that characterisation of the process. Politicians are involved in setting the framework within which those decisions are taken. That is the proper role for politicians: to say what standards should be followed—

Decisions are then to be taken in accordance with that framework.

I will make one last point, Presiding Officer, if you will allow me to do so.

If a local authority was dissatisfied with a decision that had been taken, it would be free to challenge that decision—as with any decision by the Scottish Government—in a process of law. That option is available if there has been an error in the application of the law, and that is the crucial point that we have to consider.

However, I do not want that issue to prevent me from recognising that there are important calls in the motion to which I hope that the Government will respond constructively. Communities that are making a sacrifice to be part of a just transition must be able to share in the benefits, as many communities in my constituency have shared in the benefits of wind farms that have been approved in their locality, which contribute to enhancing the health and wellbeing of the constituency that I have the privilege to represent.

I congratulate Alexander Burnett on bringing to the chamber this important debate in order to give voice to the views of people in rural Scotland on the crucial role that they have to play, as we all do, in the transition to net zero.

All of us, having experienced what we have done in the past few weeks alone, are living through the visual manifestation of the climate crisis that we face and the significant changes in climate that are taking place. One of the questions at the heart of the debate was highlighted by a Conservative member, Liam Kerr, earlier today, when he raised the issue of water scarcity. I can hardly believe that we are having a discussion about water scarcity in June, when we normally confront such issues much later in the summer period. That is another illustration of the impact of the climate crisis.

It all raises the question of whether we are serious about tackling these issues. We have to be serious about tackling the climate crisis, and renewable energy, as Alexander Burnett acknowledged, has a role to play in that as part of a mix of energy sources.

A number of the calls that Mr Burnett makes in his motion are reasonable. The points about the need for an uplift in community benefit contribution rates, for example, are valid and should be advanced, and the Government should consider those issues. We must maintain an up-to-date analysis of any societal impacts of renewable energy, and it is important that we reflect on and consider the points about the noise from night-time activity in the decision-making process.

Those are all completely reasonable points. However, we also have to recognise the necessity of ensuring that enough steps are being taken to tackle the severity and gravity of the climate crisis that we face. Onshore wind, along with offshore wind and hydro schemes, and various other measures such as investment in solar energy, are all part of that mix in the transition that we have to make.

My last point relates to the point that Mr Burnett makes in his motion where he criticises the energy consents unit in Edinburgh. With the greatest of respect, I do not think that the wording of the motion in that regard is particularly generous or charitable. I do not think that it is right to criticise public officials who are simply interpreting the law as it is made by this institution. Decisions on energy consents are taken not through some random process by civil servants, but by reference to the legitimate points that Mr Burnett raised regarding the preservation of the natural environment. Historical sites of significance, and a variety of other considerations that Parliament lays down, have to be looked at in that process. In order to build public confidence, those decisions are taken by reference to statue and evidence, which is then published in marshalled information by the consents unit.

I am grateful to Douglas Ross for giving way, and I acknowledge the points that he is making about this particular challenge. I had a case in my constituency where the local authority, which was run by Mr Ross’s party at the time, took the Government to judicial review—it was not on an energy consent matter—and failed comprehensively. The court ruled that there was no legal foundation for it. My point is that the decisions that are properly taken by Government have stood up to legal scrutiny and, in the energy consent process, there is an obligation to follow the statutory process to make sure that lawful decisions are taken. I understand that local authorities might not like those decisions, but they are taken in accordance with the statutory framework that we in Parliament have put in place.

I am grateful to Martin Whitfield for giving way. Given his experience of the school education system, he probably recognises that although school does not work out for some young people as perfectly as it does for most young people, the college sector does. We should be open to the concept of ensuring that young people are in the correct educational setting.

Hypothetical.

Will the member give way?