Chamber and committees

Does the member support the UK Government taking the decision that it did in the way that it did?

Surely, if Labour has any pretensions to be the Government in this place in 2026—and let us face it, its support is falling like snow off a dyke—it has to at some stage show that it is standing up for people in Scotland. If it were, it would condemn that cut from the UK Government. There is not a word on that £150 million from the Labour Party.

How does increasing the cost of energy by 10 per cent overnight, when Labour said that it would do exactly the opposite, help people to challenge poverty in this country? When I asked Anas Sarwar about that, he said that that was nothing to do with Labour and that it was due to Ofgem. I have screeds of quotes from Labour people condemning the Tory Government when it said that Ofgem was doing it. Of course, it was the Labour Government that made that increase, which comes on top of people who are already hard pressed.

Aneurin Bevan said that politics is the language of priorities. What are Labour’s priorities? You could cut the £100 billion or so that is going towards the renewal of Trident. You could choose to do that. That is an option that you have. That is a difficult decision, but you say that you are willing to take difficult decisions.

Choices can be made and, as some have pointed out, the Labour Party has made the choice of going after the poorest people in society.

I challenged Anas Sarwar to say that Labour knows that people in Scotland will die because of the measure that we are debating. It knows that because it has done the research. I ask, how many people in Scotland will die?

That research was before the 10 per cent increase in energy costs. Labour condemned the Conservatives for doing it before. Will it say how many people will die because of the cut to the winter fuel payment? It is really important that we understand the effect of what is happening. We surely must have a better prospect in Scotland than the perpetual austerity that we get under the UK.

That austerity also means the perpetuation of poverty. The two things go hand in hand. The policy of austerity does not even work. The Tories started austerity because they wanted to get a grip on public spending. They have just left office with £2.5 trillion of debt—more than 100 per cent of gross domestic product. Even on that measure, they have completely failed.

Paul O’Kane accused Russell Findlay of cognitive dissonance. Members should listen to this quote from Labour’s amendment. It

“recognises the need to support vulnerable people ... over winter with energy bills”.

Given the cut that Labour has just agreed, that is not cognitive dissonance but utter hypocrisy.

As Patrick Harvie said, the Scottish Government must challenge itself on what it has done, but we heard from Emma Roddick the record on tuition fees. According to a programme that I heard on Radio 4 this week, people are having to deal with a burden of £70,000, £80,000 or £90,000 as a result of having gone to university in England and Wales. There are no tuition fees in Scotland. There are free prescriptions, and that is most important to those who could not afford them otherwise.

We have also heard about the childcare payments. Most of all, however, the Scottish child payment is an earnest statement of our intent to tackle child poverty. No other Government or Parliament has done that, and it has been called “a game changer”. Leaving that aside, members should think of the difference that it has made to individual families who are getting that money every week. They can buy food and clothes for their kids, especially in the winter. Maybe it is not enough to allow them to put on the heating, given what Labour is doing to people, but it is certainly a big help to people in this country.

The Labour Party has to look at itself. Emma Roddick is right. Unfortunately, for whatever reason—I am sure that it is perfectly legitimate—Labour members who I would have loved to have heard from are not in the chamber. I know that they are concerned about the issue. I would say to them that this is the time to register that concern—to let the UK Government and Rachel Reeves know that the cut is not the thing to do. It will result in people dying, both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK. This is Labour members’ chance to show that they are opposed to that, so I encourage them to vote with the Government and for the First Minister’s motion.

I do not think that the debate has reached the level that it should have, given how important and profound the issue is that we are discussing. In particular, some of the contributions from Labour and Conservative members give us an absolute definition of “post-truth politics”.

Both Tory and Labour are reading from the same playbook, which is on how to punish and cut funding to devolved Administrations and then attack them for the inevitable consequences of the cuts that they have caused in the first place. That kind of politics is both tawdry and, in my view, Trump-like.

If we look at the title of the debate and the theme of the week—challenge poverty—we have to ask ourselves how the two-child cap challenges poverty. In what way does it do that? How does the bedroom tax challenge poverty? We used to hear about the bedroom tax an awful lot in Parliament—we used to hear about it regularly from Jackie Baillie, who is just coming back into the chamber. We have heard nothing about it since the Scottish Government started making sure that people in Scotland are protected from it, but it still exists in the rest of the UK. If the UK Government were to get rid of it, that would produce a benefit for people in Scotland, but we hear no more about the bedroom tax. How does the bedroom tax challenge poverty? How does the rape clause challenge poverty? The Labour Party is committed to keeping those things.

How does it challenge poverty to have a cut of £150 million to £160 million in the Scottish Government’s budget with 90 minutes’ notice? I have not seen a single Labour member give a defence of that. The First Minister’s question was, “Do you support that? Do you think that that is the way to conduct business between a UK Government and a devolved Administration?” In what way does a sudden, huge cut in the budget, in year, within 90 minutes of the decision being taken pay any respect to the kind of Parliament that was meant to be established under Donald Dewar?

I understand the point that the cut of £160 million will have an effect next year. It will mean that next year people will not get the benefit that we are talking about.

I realise that that is the point, but do you support—

I will leave the cabinet secretary with a suggestion that might strengthen his arm in his discussions with colleagues. There might be a particular case to be made for the culture sector, given its precariousness and the fact that the £100 million-plus has already been identified as an end point. However, I am not looking for a response on that.

It will be interesting to see whether, as I believe that he will, the cabinet secretary achieves £25 million-plus next year, and whether people in this Parliament who say that they want an increase—an increase, I should point out, compared with what is happening elsewhere—support it. My view and my prediction just now is that they will not.

My second question is on sustainability of morale, rather than finances. We have heard a lot of evidence—I would point, for example, to the Official Report of the committee’s previous meeting—about morale in the sector not being good, partly for the reasons that we have heard such as the perfect storm that people have experienced and the other pressures that they are under. That view might be a wee bit at odds with the fact that, as the cabinet secretary has said, Scotland has been pretty unique in having an increasing budget in this area. However, I note that people felt that, at various levels, they did not have access to or feel included by the Scottish Government in the way that they would have wanted. I think that they are reeling somewhat from the effect of the decision not to have a culture minister, which puts additional pressure on you, cabinet secretary, given that you are having to take on that brief as well as the external affairs and Europe portfolio.

Nevertheless, the sector is looking for greater engagement, and I think that, in these constrained financial times, regular discussion, dialogue and engagement with the sector would, on the basis of some of the testimony that we have had from stakeholders, go a long way. Is it possible to do that? I know that it will be time consuming, but can you offer any support to the sector in that regard?

I have a comment. If you look at the evidence that the committee has taken, especially at our meeting two weeks ago, you will see that organisations feel that cross-portfolio work in Government is an issue. Mr Adam questioned them about that.

I do not think that the issue for organisations is necessarily about having working groups with particular aims; rather, it is about something that is much more amorphous, such as having a discussion, a chat or a meeting at events, and about feeling included. Those types of engagement have a value in their own right. Having heard their evidence, I am not certain that many organisations will take the initiative to contact you. It will have to be down to the Government to say that you are going to have a discussion.

It is just a question of feeling supported and engaged.

I have two questions on sustainability. Many people who are watching the meeting will ask themselves whether it is sheer hypocrisy to demand certainty and multiyear funding from the Scottish Government and, at the same time, say nothing about £160 million being taken out of the Scottish Government’s budget with 90 minutes’ notice. The two things cannot co-exist, and where they do, it is hypocritical, in my view.

On financial sustainability, it is true that, as Meghan Gallacher said and, I think, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, all sorts of third sector groups are very keen to have multiyear funding. How you can have that when you do not have certainty from Westminster is the big question, but is it the case that the culture sector is slightly different? The sector has told us in evidence how precarious it feels, and if you have an end point of £100 million-plus in 2028, you know that you will be spending £100 million more by then. Is the bridge to that not a more manageable process in the culture sector than it would be in a number of other sectors? The sector is uniquely precarious, but you have an end point in place that you and your colleagues can usefully use to consider whether indications could be given as to what funding there will be over the next three or four years.

No I will not take it. He never takes interventions from me, unfortunately.

They spent eight years building six council houses at the same time as the right to buy was going around.

Those are the fundamentals of the crisis that we have, but that is not even being recognised by the other parties. This is a completely false debate. It kind of takes this Parliament’s name in vain if they cannot even properly discuss the foundations of why we have a housing crisis. If this is all about attacking one party, they are not going to get to the bottom of the crisis, which shows that they have no serious intention of dealing with the crisis.

Jackie Baillie just cannot escape from the fact that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats built six council houses in the course of eight years and accepted the right to buy, which diminished the stock of housing available at affordable prices.

There have been some constructive and positive elements to the debate. We heard some positive suggestions from Ben Macpherson, who asked for a partnership approach—albeit more in hope than expectation, I think, given some of the other contributions. We also had some good suggestions from Emma Roddick, Bob Doris and Christine Grahame. Although he is not here just now, I think that Edward Mountain also tried to make some positive suggestions.

It is important to try and think of positive suggestions. I myself have written to the Government on that. In my view, the devolution of housing benefit, which has long been talked about but never agreed, could present new opportunities, not least in relation to housing for homelessness, which is very expensive and unsatisfactory, if the budget was dealt with in the correct way.

An idea, which was perhaps mentioned by Christine Grahame, is local government pension funds. I declare an interest in relation to my own pension fund. The Falkirk pension fund has contributed towards new house building in that area. From an objective point of view, you would think that pension funds would find it attractive to build houses, as it provides a long-term investment. On that, if they build houses that are very energy efficient—I know that Willie Rennie was not too keen on the Passivhaus as an ideal—such houses can reduce to virtually nil the energy costs of living in a house, which means that they can charge more rent. Apart from being good for the environment, an emphasis on new build and energy efficiency is good for homelessness numbers as well.

In relation to the housing that we do have, a policy of having targeted affordable housing for people such as social care workers and other workers who are very important in areas would be a good idea, if it is possible.

I have to say, however, that the rest of the debate has been pretty dispiriting stuff. In fact, it has not really been a debate for many people; it has been a press release that has found words in this chamber, which is unfortunate. I think that it was Anas Sarwar who said that it was “pathetic, inept and shameful.” I think that that has been the contribution that we have had from the Labour Party.

The Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition that we have in the Parliament has refused to acknowledge even the existence of some of the most fundamental causes of the housing crisis. There has been no mention of the cost of living crisis, no mention of rocketing energy costs and no mention of Liz Truss—but there is no surprise there. Brexit has had a massive impact on construction costs and on labour availability—that was also not mentioned by any of the parties. The budget cuts that the minister mentioned in both capital funding and financial transactions are huge, but there has been no mention of that.

This is critical: no one in the coalition of others who want to be the Government in this place has mentioned, or spoken out against, £160 million being taken out of the Scottish Government’s budget at 90 minutes’ notice. They have all accepted that and they all support it, but if they accept that, they must accept the fact that the money is not available for us to do the things that we want to do. There was not a word from any party about that.

I think that Willie Rennie must have been joking when he said that we should go for volume. This is a guy who supports the Liberal Democrats, who built six houses in eight years between 1999 and in 2007. “Go for volume,” says Willie. He said that the Government should be embarrassed, but I think that Willie Rennie should be embarrassed by that shocking record.