Chamber and committees

I conclude by saying—given what has been said and the complete absence of any substantive amendment or suggested change to the proposed budget—that to my mind, the best thing that members in the chamber can do is vote for the budget motion in the name of the Scottish Government.

Murdo Fraser is carefully avoiding mentioning the fact that, under the Tories, the UK now has the highest tax burden since the second world war. He also never mentions the £400 to £500 lower council tax in Scotland. As well as the differential that he mentions, will he at least acknowledge the base that the UK Government has set in having the highest tax burden since the second world war?

I should say at the start of my speech that I believe that this is a good budget that was constructed in very difficult circumstances. I like that it supports our public services, that it has social justice at its heart and that it protects our NHS—the best-performing NHS in the UK.

However, we heard in a number of speeches from Conservative and Labour members comparisons with previous Tory Governments or a future Labour Government.

Liz Smith told us that there is not sufficient support for business. That statement comes from a party that said virtually nothing in Scotland about the effects of Brexit on the Scottish economy and business. If the member is going to listen to what business says about the budget—which would be quite right; I do not deny that it should be done—why did she not listen to business when it told her its concerns about Brexit, which has had a far greater impact on business in Scotland? Is it the case that she shares Boris Johnson’s attitude to business? I cannot use the word that he used when he said what he would do to it, but I can say to members that it starts with an F. That was the Tory approach to business.

Conservative members have also made allegations that there is financial mismanagement or a budgeting crisis. Those allegations come from a party that has seen us reach £2.65 trillion in debt, which is the highest-ever level. We have the highest tax burden since the second world war: that has come from a Tory Government. As John Swinney mentioned, we also see the effects of inflation.

First, I welcome Neil Gray to his position as Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care. He is one of the strongest members of the Government and it is one of the most difficult posts, so best of luck to him.

I also welcome Tim Eagle to the Parliament. I hope that I will have the same convivial relationship with him as I have with his colleagues. I ask him to pass on my best regards to Donald Cameron, who left suddenly. We worked together on the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, and I always found him to be a courteous and considered individual.

What we heard from Alex Cole-Hamilton raises real issues but, in my view, the contribution is entirely fatuous, because it seeks to ignore some of the big determinants of what we are discussing. First, we get groans from some parts of the chamber when comparisons are made with other parts of the UK—unless it is a comparison that those members want to make—but the amount of resources that come to Scotland is determined by spending decisions that are made in London. The UK Government rightly bases those decisions on what it believes the need to be, but Scotland just falls into place, as does Wales. If we ignore the extent to which resources, including the capital cut to the NHS budget, derive from Westminster, this is not a real debate.

Another thing that is disregarded and ignored in the debate is that Covid seems to be a justifiable reason to give for some of the issues in the NHS in England—as happened this week in the House of Commons—and in Wales, but it is not seen as justifiable here in Scotland.

No—I will not. I have only four minutes, and Alex Cole-Hamilton has not been in the chamber during the whole of my speech, anyway.

Another thing that is unreal is the failure to acknowledge—particularly by Alex Rowley—the fact that Scotland has higher-paid NHS staff. As Ivan McKee pointed out, we have more NHS staff, and we have had no strikes in the NHS. If this was a genuine discussion about the condition of primary care services, there would be some mention of those facts.

A fourth thing that Opposition members have not mentioned, although Ivan McKee mentioned it, is the impact on the NHS of Brexit and of the more recent announcement that further restricts care workers’ ability to come to Scotland. If those things are completely ignored, how genuine can the discussion be?

Much of what Opposition members say in the chamber is derogatory towards the NHS and its staff, although it is usually dressed up by saying that it is the SNP NHS. My experience, whether of primary care or otherwise, including cancer care, is different. In the past couple of weeks, somebody I know who has cancer was seen within three days—they had a mammogram and an ultrasound, saw the consultant twice and were dealt with in three days. I am not saying that everyone gets that service, and I am not trying to pretend that there are no issues and no waiting lists, although the waiting lists here are substantially shorter than those in many other parts of the UK.

Surely it is more important to discuss how the spend on NHS services in Scotland, including on primary care, compares with that in other countries, so that we get a true comparison, or to consider what other countries are doing that is different and that we could learn from.

There is no question but that the NHS has done an absolutely fantastic job. I just recounted an experience from the past couple of weeks, but there was an even better one in the midst of Covid, which I will quickly recount. A consultant saw somebody who I knew and who had to have their gall bladder removed. After that person’s emergency admission to hospital in the afternoon, the consultant said that, since he was on that night, he would do the operation then—the same day as the person was diagnosed. Given how crammed the hospital was at the time—it was Glasgow royal infirmary—that was an absolutely fantastic job. I just wish that we had heard more about the work that has been done in the NHS.

I wish that we could have a realistic debate in which the Opposition parties at least acknowledged the constraints that operate in Scotland, as they do in Wales and Northern Ireland, because of the way in which the UK is structured. I will support the amendment in the name of Neil Gray when we come to decision time.

I agree with that—I see nothing wrong with such concerns being brought to the chamber. That was not my point; my point was that, if we are to have a rounded debate, let us acknowledge why some of these things are happening—the root causes of them. We should have a more rounded debate, but I am not challenging the right of members to raise such issues in the chamber.

I do not know as much about this as I would like to know, but, from the opening comments, it seems that the big question is about where we go from here. If there is no pre-made plan based on ideology or whatever else for where we should go, surely we should take a pragmatic approach by thinking about how things that are not currently working could work better. Irene Oldfather made the point that the situation is likely to change over the course of the year, but surely it is about trying to deal with the pressure points and friction points. That is my suggestion.

It has been quite heartening but also surprising to hear that people are fairly sanguine and are working through solutions. That is good to know but, because we have some big players around the table, it is surprising to hear what is quite discordant.

I was contacted this week by a small firm in Kintyre whose business has been decimated because it cannot export its cooked fish products. The difference between the big players—who know how to get around Government and legitimately prosecute their interests—and the vast majority of businesses, which are small and medium-sized enterprises, is stark.

Irene Oldfather mentioned that when she spoke about SMEs. Have you listened to such businesses and do you have feedback from them? As best I can gather—I think that most MSPs have heard about it—their experience is quite different. We read in the media—that does not necessarily mean that it is true—that there are major issues because of the impact on small businesses. How can they work their way through the TCA? For small businesses, that can be a huge challenge.

I agree with what Agnes Tolmie said. Back in the mists of time, I did an exchange course as a student. It was outwith the EU, but I gained a huge amount from it.

Tom Sallis made points about the WTO being a way to influence the EU indirectly and, earlier, about South Korea and the Asia-Pacific region. The other side of this is the absence of trade agreements between the UK and countries around the world. One or two have been signed, but people say that the New Zealand one is pretty disastrous. Previously, of course, we would have been included under EU trade agreements. What has been the impact of the absence of trade agreements? Has there been any impact on exports, trade or other matters?

If it is the case that there are opportunities that can be exploited, we are years since Brexit and that has not been realised. We have not done a deal with the big ones, such as the US and Canada, and I am much less optimistic about India than Mr Sallis is, to be honest: Modi has made it fairly clear that we will not do a deal any time soon. We miss more opportunities the longer this goes on; if they exist, we are missing out. We were told deals would happen very quickly. That is my concern.