Chamber and committees

What does Rachael Hamilton say to NFU Scotland’s horticulture convener, Iain Brown, who has commented on the fact that crops are rotting in the fields of our country because there are not enough workers to harvest those products and who said that the Home Secretary’s rhetoric is making the situation worse?

Rachael Hamilton knows full well that those resources had to be deployed in order to assist in balancing the budget in the previous financial year because of the hyperinflation that was created by the Conservative Government in its September 2022 mini-budget. At that time, ministers gave a commitment—I believe that it still stands, although I am no longer a serving minister in the Scottish Government—that that money will be inserted into the budgets in due course, when the requirement is there for it to be paid. Therefore, I do not think that Rachael Hamilton should be going around the country spreading scare stories in the fashion that she has just done. [Interruption.]

Will Mr Mundell give way?

What encouragement can the cabinet secretary give to NHS Tayside to consider directly providing GP services in the village of Invergowrie, in my constituency, where there is some uncertainty over the future of GP provision, to ensure that my elderly and vulnerable constituents can have convenient access to GP services, given the transport challenges that they may face in accessing services in other parts of the county or in the city of Dundee?

Will the member take an intervention?

Given the devastating warning from the Institute for Government about the damage that the passage of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could do to the processes of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary democracy, and the administrative exercise of power, and in terms of the power grab that the bill represents to UK Government ministers, has the cabinet secretary sought the agreement of all political parties in this chamber to make representations to the United Kingdom Government that it should not proceed as planned? If he has not done so, will he, as a matter of urgency, secure agreement to protect this Parliament from the recklessness of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?

I am interested in the development of the member’s argument, because he is in danger of arguing at cross purposes with himself, which I am surprised about, because most of his speech, which I have heartily agreed with, has been about the enhancement of the situation that victims face, the protection of victims and the articulation of victims’ interests. However, from my listening to him, he has just slammed the door on a means of strengthening the potential outcomes for victims in rape cases. I am interested to understand how he squares that particular circle.

I will draw my remarks to a close. That network is now bearing significant fruit through sharing of economic and intellectual thinking between Scotland and other jurisdictions that have significant roles to play.

All that is relevant to ensuring that we create an economy that meets the needs of all our citizens in Scotland—an economy that uses our resources wisely and plans on the basis of investment for the future. The Government’s motion indicates the steps that we need to take to ensure that we turn that into reality in the forthcoming period.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises Scotland’s international leadership in the transition to a wellbeing economy, by not only growing but transforming the economy to one that serves current and future generations, and delivers a prosperous, socially-just Scotland within safe environmental limits, where everyone can flourish; notes that this remains a defining mission for the Scottish Government, including through its leadership in forming the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo) group and delivery of the National Strategy for Economic Transformation; agrees that the delivery of a wellbeing economy requires a worker- and community-led just transition to a net-zero, nature-positive economy that has equality, human rights and fair work at its heart, enabling Scotland to tackle child poverty, empower communities, build community wealth and create a socially-just society; notes the publication of the Wellbeing Economy Monitor, which tracks broader outcomes beyond GDP on issues such as health, equality, fair work and the environment, and the Wellbeing Economy Toolkit, which supports place-based economic development; commends the work of the Cross-party Group on Wellbeing Economy and partners across Scotland, and recognises that independence would allow Scotland to make greater progress, but, until then, calls for the devolution of energy and additional economic powers to the Scottish Parliament to support Scotland's transition to a wellbeing economy.

The performance of any country’s economy is not an abstract concept. The prospects for the economy, as well as its focus, are fundamental to the life chances of every person in our society. They affect the living standards of our people, the ability of people to fulfil their potential and the choices that we can make about how we use our resources. They all, as is at the heart of the debate today, on a cumulative basis affect the wellbeing of our people. That is the rationale behind this Government’s determination to pursue a wellbeing economy on behalf of the people of Scotland.

The cost of living crisis, the obvious and recognised negative consequences of the United Kingdom Government’s mini-budget last September, and the impacts of Brexit are all creating a significant impact in Scotland on the wellbeing of people, businesses, the third sector and our vital public services.

The UK budget last week outlined the gravity of the situation, with the Office for Budget Responsibility estimating the impact on household disposable income over last year and this year—a fall of 5.7 per cent—to be the highest in living memory. That represents the largest two-year fall in real living standards since Office for National Statistics records began in the 1950s, and it means that by 2027-28, real living standards will still be around 0.5 per cent below pre-pandemic levels.

UK inflation has again risen today and, although the OBR has forecast that inflation will fall by the end of 2023, the severe impact on households in Scotland of the cost of living crisis brings home the impact on wellbeing and the lack of economic resilience in the UK economy.

Sarah Boyack’s proposed member’s bill raises important and substantial issues that are very much the consideration of the Government in relation to how we take forward the wellbeing economy agenda. Given the length of her experience, Sarah Boyack will understand that I can commit to absolutely nothing this afternoon. However, I am sure that there will be a willing audience on the Government benches for those points in due course.

John Mason, in his usual forensic style, summed up the contribution of the Conservative Party to this debate, because what its amendment does is remove the following concepts from the Government’s motion: “socially just”, “net zero”, “fair work”, “community ownership”, “environmental care” and “human rights”. That sums up what the Conservative Party has to offer us.

A number of very kind things have been said by members and, as has been acknowledged, this is likely to be my final speech to Parliament as a minister in the Scottish Government, unless an urgent question is selected for tomorrow. I will simply try to lean on the Presiding Officer to ensure that that is not the case.

I am grateful to Liz Smith, Willie Rennie, Daniel Johnson, Fiona Hyslop, Emma Roddick and others for their kind remarks. I am very glad that my strategy for handling radio broadcasts has been properly interpreted by Willie Rennie as having the purpose of ensuring that nobody is any the wiser about any of the answers in these difficult circumstances.

I would like to make some remarks in closing the debate and closing the defining chapter of my professional life. I told the First Minister some months ago that I intended to step down at the end of the period in which I had temporarily returned to the finance and economy remit. I fear that I may have prompted the First Minister to do some reflection of her own at the same time.

I was struck by the comments of one commentator about my decision. He said that it was often best to have people asking, “Why are you resigning?” rather than, “Why are you staying?” After 16 years in office, I have to say that I was rather surprised, from time to time, that more people were not asking why I was still here. The absence of such comments may tell us all something, but being reminded that I appeared in Emma Roddick’s school class in Inverness in 2014 is perhaps an indication that it is time to move on.

As a 15-year-old in 1979 I joined a party that had terrible electoral prospects, so my long ministerial career has been something of a surprise. There may be some hope for some in that observation at this moment.

Over my period in office, I have exercised responsibilities across finance, the economy, the constitution, education and skills, Covid recovery, and a multitude of subjects as Deputy First Minister. Of course, I have not achieved all that I would have wanted in my ministerial life. I would have loved, Mr Fraser, to have achieved independence for Scotland, but I am confident that those who follow me will do just that.

In the spirit and substance of this debate, all my work has been focused on enhancing the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Among the many measures that I believe have helped to do that, the concordat with local government, the expansion of early learning and childcare, the renewal of the school estate, the four harms framework for Covid recovery, a fiscal framework that protected our funding, and the budgets that prioritised investment in our public services all rank as significant moments.

But, for me, the policy intervention with which I have been most closely associated and which has had the biggest impact on the wellbeing of some, and possibly all, in our society has been confronting our country’s historical failure to protect children from abuse. The establishment of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, the passage of legislation for a scheme of redress, and the successful operation of that scheme are all now assisting some of those in our society who have been most damaged by their betrayal by others to contemplate recovery.

Those reforms came about only because of a fair-minded and non-tribal spirit in this Parliament. Without wishing to destroy his career, I say that Jamie Greene epitomised that for me on the issue of redress. I have also experienced it on other issues on other occasions. Alex Rowley and Willie Rennie can often get the greatest degree of reasonableness out of me. I have experienced it unreservedly in the partnership that we have constructed and I have nurtured with the Scottish Greens. I say gently to Parliament that there is not nearly enough of that in the Scottish Parliament today, and that I think that our discourse would be the better for it. I agree very much with Alex Rowley on that point.

I know that this will be vigorously disputed by the Opposition—Graham Simpson will probably be at the front of the queue in disputing what I am about to say—but not everything in Scotland today is awful. Yes, there are many challenges—there always will be—but there are also many wonderful things happening. As a tip from an old hand, the Opposition may find that they prosper by being just a bit more positive about Scotland and the work of her Government.

Yes, my ministerial career has been a bit of a surprise to me, but it has also been the greatest privilege of my professional life. I am grateful to the First Minister for giving me the honour of serving as Deputy First Minister, to the people of Scotland for their kindness and to Parliament for holding me to account.

I have done my best. It is now for others to fill this space. [Applause.]