Chamber and committees

I thank Maggie Chapman for taking an intervention. I tried to intervene on Sarah Boyack, because I wanted to make the point that, although she is the only Labour member in the chamber, I believe her sincerity when she says that she supports devolution. That goes back to the time when I campaigned with her father and ran a marathon to raise money for a Scottish assembly, as it was called.

Is Maggie Chapman, like me, utterly dismayed that the strongest Labour voice in defence of this Parliament is the First Minister of Wales?

I offer many thanks to those members who have supported the motion and allowed me to bring this important issue to the chamber, and to those members who have stayed behind to listen to the debate.

To be frank, it is a disgrace that we even have to debate this issue, but debate it we must, because this chamber and this institution—this Parliament of ours—are under attack. Sadly, there are those within these walls who are complicit in that attack—some explicitly and others by their silence, or even by their absence.

There is a phrase that is often trotted out about the Scottish Parliament and that predates its existence; it was part of the argument that was made during the referendum campaign that brought the Scottish Parliament into being. It is that devolution and the Scottish Parliament are “the settled will of the Scottish people”. For me, that is a bit

“thus far ... and no further”.

Like Parnell, I am more inclined to insist that

“No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation”.

Indeed, all the parties in the chamber signed up to the Smith commission, which said that nothing should prevent the Parliament from moving on to become independent if that was what the people of Scotland voted for. There was certainly a very broad consensus in 1999 that a wide range of issues were best dealt with here in Scotland’s Parliament rather than down the road in Westminster, and I do not see any sign of a shrinking back from that view among the people of Scotland. On the contrary, support for extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament has grown substantially, and support for independence is regularly the majority option in frequent opinion polls—as recently as last week, in fact.

However, what I also see is hard-line unionists—those who were not part of the 1999 consensus and have resented the very existence of this place ever since—emboldened perhaps by their experience with Brexit and fuelled by dewy-eyed reminiscences of an empire on which the sun never set and a golden age that never existed, trying to claw back powers to Westminster and to Whitehall.

The long list of legislation that is detailed in the motion shows that this is not a one-off issue. Those people are working to a template and with scant regard for democracy. We could easily add to that list the blocking of an independence referendum and the refusal to recognise the overwhelming opposition in Scotland to Brexit and being dragged out of the European Union.

We also see the phenomenon of the craven Conservatives who will never defend anything that might represent the interests of the people of Scotland if it conflicts with what the Government in London is doing. One example of that was the Liz Truss fiasco, which cost Scotland perhaps £6 billion, with not a word of criticism from the Conservatives.

Let us be clear: this is not just the view of the “bolshie Jock grievance-mongers”, as people such as Jacob Rees-Mogg might describe us. For example, the former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish—who would, I think, be appalled at the absences on the Labour benches tonight—has branded Tory moves to curtail Scottish ministerial engagement abroad as an attack on devolution and has highlighted “the contempt, the disrespect” and the “political control and coercion” of the United Kingdom Government. He highlighted the Scottish Government’s “absolute democratic right” to pursue international engagement, and he warned that

“This Tory government does not recognise the spirit of devolution”.

Looking at the UK Government’s intention to use a section 35 order for the first time to stop the Scottish Parliament implementing a piece of devolved legislation—one with cross-party support, and majority support from MSPs of all parties—the current Labour First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, who, again, is more concerned about devolution than some members in this chamber, said that the move to block the law sets a “very dangerous” precedent, and that that could be

“a very slippery slope indeed”.

When the unelected Tory peer Lord Frost, who served as Boris Johnson’s failed Brexit negotiator, argued that “no more powers” should be given to the Scottish Parliament and that some powers should be snatched back by Westminster, there were Tory members, such as Murdo Fraser, Stephen Kerr and Donald Cameron, who is in the chamber tonight, who rightly condemned the column and sought to distance themselves from the proposals. I promised Donald Cameron that I would mention the fact that his relative Michael Ancram was one of those members who spoke up in the House of Commons against the clause that became section 35. Where is that strain of Tory these days?

The Tories now avidly support Westminster’s section 35 veto, and they frequently call on their Westminster bosses to ignore the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. Just this weekend, it emerged that the UK Government is blocking the deposit return scheme, which was approved by the Scottish Parliament, because glass is included in it. The Welsh Government has also included glass in its scheme, and it will no doubt be told “No”, as well. The odd thing is that, as we know, the Tories here supported the inclusion of glass in the scheme. I am looking at Maurice Golden—or I would be looking at him if he was in the chamber—who, as long ago as 2019, tweeted:

“Scotland’s new deposit returns system should include glass. It’s just common sense”.

The move to block the scheme can only be a macho exercise in flexing constitutional muscle on the part of Westminster.

Britain is financially broke and constitutionally broken, but even with the limited powers of devolution, the Scottish Parliament has been able to make a difference. We have been building a fairer Scotland with the Scottish child payment, which is the most ambitious anti-poverty measure anywhere in the UK and which increased by 150 per cent in 2022. We have been creating a healthier Scotland, with record high staff levels in our national health service—over 28,800 more staff under the Scottish National Party. We are forging forward with a greener Scotland; our climate targets, for a 75 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2045, are among the most ambitious in the world. We are supporting a smarter Scotland, with, for example, £1 billion for the Scottish attainment challenge to support our most disadvantaged children and young people. We are promoting a wealthier Scotland, with a progressive income tax system to ensure that the majority—52 per cent—of Scottish taxpayers pay less than is paid elsewhere in the UK, while delivering extra support for our public services.

That is only scratching the surface of the benefits that devolved government—and, in particular, the SNP’s policies, in my view—has brought to Scotland. I could go on and list many more, or I could highlight the ways in which Scotland is outperforming the rest of UK—for example, on teachers’ pay, police officers’ pay and crime reduction. I do not have time to list all the benefits—the list is long and impressive—but perhaps other members will pick up that baton when they speak.

The Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish people need more powers, not fewer powers. The attacks by the Tories on devolution and the failure of Labour and the Liberal Democrats—I see no Lib Dem members at all in the chamber tonight—to oppose them will not be unnoticed, forgiven or forgotten by the people of Scotland.

The former Tory member of Parliament and minister Enoch Powell—not somebody whom I have ever quoted with relish—said that power devolved is power retained. The UK Government wants to go further and see Westminster’s power regained. It wants to take back control. We will not let it do that. I end with a call to members on all sides of the chamber, at least to those who are here tonight, and certainly to all those who have believed in devolution from the start and still do, to unite and repatriate the power that has been stolen from this Parliament and from the people of Scotland.

Last year, a number of Tory MSPs in the chamber were calling on the Scottish Government to replicate Kwasi Kwarteng’s catastrophic plans for tax cuts for the rich, following the UK Government’s disastrous mini-budget, which ended up crashing the economy to the tune of—we are told by some commentators—£74 billion, Scotland’s share of which is around £6 billion. There was not a word of comment from the Tories about that £6 billion that was lost to the economy. Can the Deputy First Minister advise what the likely impact would have been had those tax cuts been implemented by a Tory Administration, and what the effect of the Tory spending cuts for Scotland would have been?

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate, although it has been quite a dispiriting one—I refer especially to Labour members. After 16 years of failure in the Parliament, we would think that there would be some analysis, some understanding of the problem, and some possible solutions. However, we heard nothing about those from Alex Rowley. All we heard was the usual soundbites and attack lines.

Everyone who is involved in bus travel and who has had a constituent come to them about an issue knows that two of the main issues are climate change and social exclusion. However, the causes of some of the problems that we have talked about have been the pandemic, Brexit and, in particular, the recruitment of drivers, which Fiona Hyslop made a point about. For example, every time that Lothian Buses goes on a recruitment spree, every other part of the country loses out in terms of the pool of drivers. Of course, many people—not least people from eastern Europe—who were previously happy to be drivers have been prevented from being a driver because of Brexit.

No. I have only four minutes.

There was not a word about Brexit or the pandemic. Everybody knows that the pandemic has altered people’s work patterns and commuting practices. During lockdown, many drivers sought other jobs and did not return. As I said, Brexit cut off access to another source of drivers. I have seen the shortage of drivers in my constituency leading to reductions in services on a couple of routes—

I know that this is very uncomfortable—it will not last very long.

The number of passenger journeys per person has been decreasing across Great Britain since 2008-09. In Wales, the number of journeys per person is less than half the rate in both Scotland and England. Although the total distance travelled on buses in Wales increased by almost a third compared with the previous year, the total distance travelled decreased most in Wales compared with pre-pandemic levels, and that has recovered the least compared with England and Scotland.

I do not quote those figures to try to make the Welsh Government look bad, but merely to point out that the Labour Party patently does not have a magic wand to fix bus services in Wales, and it does not have one—and it has not suggested one—for Scotland either.

Of course it is the job of Opposition parties to oppose and to highlight where the Government might be going wrong, but they also have a duty to be honest with the public and to make suggestions if they think that things should be done differently.

Let us look at the motion. We are told that the improvement of bus services should happen more quickly and that local authorities should have more resources—although I do not know how the Tories are going to manage that by cutting £500 million from the Scottish budget through tax cuts. There is simply no indication from either side of where the money will come from. When we are dealing with a virtually fixed-size budget, that is simply irresponsible.

Surely the motion was lodged because the Labour Party wanted to do more than simply gripe. There must be a big idea—a cunning plan to transform bus transport in Scotland. It is to cap fares. That is the solution put forward by the Labour Party. There is no reference to, or understanding of, the impact of Brexit or the pandemic. What a paucity of vision that represents.

One idea on its own is highly unlikely to lead to the increased passenger numbers that help to make bus routes more sustainable. We need a broad package of measures, and that is what the Scottish Government is addressing.

Just this month, the Minister for Transport launched a £300,000 campaign co-funded by the Scottish Government and the Confederation of Passenger Transport to encourage people to choose the bus. Meanwhile, the various concessionary bus travel schemes brought in by the Scottish Government have now reached the significant stage at which 100 million bus journeys are being taken each year by holders of one or other of the concessionary travel scheme cards.

I am absolutely delighted that the people of Clackmannanshire and Dunblane and people throughout Scotland are taking advantage of the concessionary travel cards available. Those figures underline the SNP’s commitment to widening access to free bus travel.

For that reason, I support the amendment in Kevin Stewart’s name.

I have said that I am not taking any interventions. I have only four minutes.

Is that a uniquely Scottish problem? Of course it is not, any more than it is a uniquely Clackmannanshire and Dunblane problem.

Neil Bibby invited us to look at the record of the Labour Party elsewhere in the UK. Let us do that. Let us look, for example, at Wales, where the Labour Party is actually in power—

None of this is to do with you personally, of course, permanent secretary, although I note that the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government is appointed jointly by the principal adviser to the UK Government—the cabinet secretary—and the First Minister. It is a question of perception, and it is probably less of a question when relationships are productive and constructive. As you say, it probably comes more into view for people because of the constitutional situation and the stand-off.

On the point that was raised previously in relation to the ministerial code and the interference in the Scottish civil service by the Secretary of State, I recently received a letter from a guy called Lord Pickles, telling me various things that I could and could not do and referring continuously to the ministerial code of conduct and the Government’s position. I think that he was referring to the UK Government—he seemed very ignorant of the situation in Scotland. That confusion is surely a matter of concern when it comes to situations where the Secretary of State for Scotland is trying to instruct or countermand some of the things that the Scottish Government is trying to do.

Given that point, given that this Parliament would not settle for its staff being told what to do by the Government or somebody else and given that no local authority would accept that its officials should be directed by somebody else, is it not a better idea just to have a Scottish civil service?

I am a new member of the committee, so I am not included in what Liz Smith said about the concerns of the committee. I disassociate myself from those remarks.

I am a bit surprised that we have gone down the route of gender recognition reform, but let us stick with that for a second. That policy is in not just the Scottish Government’s manifesto but everybody’s manifesto. Two consultations were undertaken, and the proposals have been subject to more parliamentary scrutiny than any other measure that I can remember in my time in this Parliament. Despite that, at the end of that process we are in a situation in which another Government has said that it will nullify the bill. That is the biggest development that we have seen in public administration or in decision making in the Parliament, certainly since my time here and I think since its inception.

If another Government just steps in, without saying what it thinks is wrong with the bill and says that it will strike it down—incredibly, some members in this Parliament support the UK Government doing that to this Parliament—what is the effect on the civil service and ministers when considering further policy initiatives? That threat has been raised again in relation to a couple of other measures, such as the deposit return scheme. What is the effect on policy making in the Scottish Government of that interference with the Scottish Parliament?