Chamber and committees

We need to have a serious conversation about cutting back on the level of chronic inequality in relation to the distribution of wealth in our society, because that is the fundamental problem. If we want Scandinavian levels of public services—which I do—we need Scandinavian levels of taxation. We cannot have high levels of public services and US levels of taxation. The lack of a wealth tax is critical in that regard.

I want to come on to the UK Government, which has taken really positive steps, such as raising the minimum wage and capping bus fares. The warm home discount is mentioned in Scottish Labour’s amendment. Although there is still some ambiguity about it, the UK Government is open to some element of a role for public ownership in energy through Great British Energy. I still want to know more about the detail of how that will work, because there is a lack of clarity.

Both Governments also have major shortcomings. The UK Government has no willingness to use rent controls, for example, and it still permits precarious working conditions. It refuses to bring in progressive income tax, which has already been shown to be effective in Scotland, or a wealth tax, which is one of the things that is so lacking, given the structure of inequality in our society. Even if GB Energy is successful in bringing about more public ownership of the energy system, Labour is still willing to do the bidding of the nuclear industry lobbyists, despite the eye-wateringly high price of both new and old nuclear.

Paul O’Kane says, quite honestly, that he does not know the detail of the incoming benefit cuts; I do not know the detail either—none of us does with 100 per cent certainty, but we certainly know that they are coming. The cuts will not cause pain for the likes of us—those of us who sit in the chamber on generous salaries. They will be targeted at those who are much more vulnerable.

On energy, the single biggest step that I would like to see from the UK Government is the decoupling of energy bills, because the artificial link between gas and electricity prices means that the cheap, abundant, clean, green and renewable electricity that we are generating is not benefiting people in their bills.

As for the Scottish Government, it is watering down rent controls proposals and has reintroduced peak-time rail fares. We could have moved straight away to a £2 bus fare cap—we managed to persuade the Government to go to a pilot, but we could have skipped that stage.

The most glaring area of absence of action is energy efficiency. The cabinet secretary mentioned it in her speech and motion, but the heat in buildings bill is the critical policy tool that is needed to drive investment in the clean heat sector and give regulatory clarity and financial support to those who need it.

Even now, running a heat pump can be just as cost effective as running a gas boiler, and with a modern, much more efficient heat pump and flexible tariff, doing so can cost as little as half the price of running a gas boiler. However, people need the financial support—either through loans, green mortgages or other schemes, such as grants—in order to shift towards making such an investment, which would lead to financial savings from energy bills.

Last week, the First Minister told the Parliament:

“The Government is considering all the issues that were raised in the consultation on heat in buildings. We will respond as soon as we can.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; c 16.]

The trouble is that that is precisely where things stood a year ago. The bill was on track to be introduced in November, but now it is missing without explanation. I hope that the cabinet secretary will explain the delay in her closing speech, because further delay to the bill is unacceptable, risks the legislation failing to pass during the current parliamentary session and leaves the entire industry at a complete loss as to whether it is worth investing in the skills, capacity and supply chain that we need to bring down future costs. The bill must be introduced now and, in her closing speech, I hope that the cabinet secretary will explain where it is and what has happened to it.

Before the member moves on from housing, does he agree that one of the things that has turbocharged the change towards ever more unaffordable housing is that a great deal of housing has been transferred into the private rented sector and is simply seen as a cash cow by those who own excess property? They own more property than they need, which has massively increased the unaffordability of housing for the rest.

A number of members have focused clearly on the impact that the issues that we are debating have had on their constituents, and a number, from a range of political perspectives, have done their best to place this debate in a wider global context. I will single out Ben Macpherson’s speech, which most successfully combined the global context with the long-term, multidecade context that some of the pressures have come from while focusing clearly on the practical impact of those issues on our constituents.

Part of the global context comes from the multiple threats that are posed at the moment by authoritarian regimes such as those of Trump and Putin. That threat goes beyond any specific measures that they may take, such as kicking off a trade war, harmful though that clearly will be and destructive and unnecessary though it is. The threat is to do with the fact that they, and the billionaire class that they serve, are now pretty open that they regard the continued plundering of the world’s resources as being fundamentally incompatible with democracy. I have believed that for a long time, but the super-rich who want to continue that plunder are now having to face up to it, and they will choose plunder rather than democracy on every occasion. That is the scale of the threat that we are facing. If we want to have even a decent chance of democracy surviving and want to give people a reason to believe in it, a fair redistribution of wealth is urgently needed.

The climate emergency is another part of the global context for our debates. Everyone who has spent even five minutes understanding the science will get the very clear need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. The cost of living crisis of recent years was sparked off by a fossil fuel crisis when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced this country and other European countries to recognise and acknowledge their overreliance on fossil fuels. That is true not only for the countries that imported gas directly by pipeline from Russia, because that wholesale market set the prices even for those who produce gas domestically. The invasion of Ukraine impacted the fossil fuel economy for everyone, including people in this country.

There is no reason to sustain or continue the artificial link between gas prices and electricity prices in the UK, which several members have referred to. It is an entirely artificial construct of the way in which the energy market is regulated in the UK, and even those who switch to renewable electricity—which is the cheapest form of energy to generate—do not get the benefit of that cheap generation in the bills that they pay.

As for those who recognise that we are behind where we should be and that we are running behind schedule on climate, but who think that the response should be to slow down action, that is simply at odds with reality. When we are running behind schedule, the only rational response is to speed up. Yes, it must be a just transition, and, no, so far it has not been. The overwhelming reason for that is that far too much power is in the hands of the private sector and the billionaire class—the kind of people who run industries for their own benefit and stash the proceeds in tax havens. There was a campaign that used the slogan “Take back control” just a few years ago. I wish to goodness that we had Governments in this country that were willing to take back control from the billionaires, because that would be far more successful in achieving benefit for the public and for the standard of living of most people than the actions that have been taken.

Several members have talked about the potential for co-operation that exists. There is, I hope, potential for co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. The issue of energy pricing, which I will come back to, is one of the really positive areas where the opportunity could be there if both Governments seize it. If the UK Government changes the approach to regulating energy prices and the Scottish Government accelerates the transition away from fossil fuels for both heat and transport, we will have a win-win situation. Those who have supported making that transition will find that it is cheaper to do so, and Governments will find it more possible to provide support with that.

I want to unpack some other issues a little further. On the subject of rent, I mentioned Ben Macpherson’s speech, and he was quite right to say that the issue is about the long-term increase in housing costs. That has gone on for decades. Any one of us can go online right now and find out about it. I can look at the price that the flat that I live in would sell for today and find out what a mortgage would cost, and I can compare that with what it would cost to rent that self-same flat. People who are forced to rent their home in the private rented sector are paying significantly more for less. They do not get full control of the property, nor do they get the uplift in the property value over time, yet they are paying back the private debt of the landlord, who is able to service a repayment mortgage—not just an interest mortgage—by exploitative and extractive levels of rent. That is the rent that people are being forced to pay in communities up and down the country. That should end, and the Government’s desire to connect rent control areas to above-inflation rent increases will entirely defeat the purposes of that initiative.

I could say a great deal more, but I will end by asking the cabinet secretary to explain, in closing, where the heat in buildings bill is. What has been happening to it since November, when it was supposed to be introduced, and when we will see it?

Like Paul O’Kane, I begin by acknowledging Liz Smith’s recent announcement about her future. She has the distinction among Conservative members that, even when she says things that I find objectionable, she always says them in a constructive tone of voice. That is something at least—not all of her colleagues are able to manage that. I wish her well on a personal level, as I do other members who have made similar announcements.

I am grateful for the chance to debate the wide range of issues that are raised in the motion, including the wider cost of living agenda and specific energy issues, which connect to last week’s debate on energy policy. However, this debate would have benefited from a slightly more open and reflective approach from Labour and the SNP, which seem to be using their motion or amendment for today’s debate principally to lay out their stall about what their Government is doing. I acknowledge the reason why they might want to do that, but the truth is that there are positives and shortcomings from both Governments.

The importance of the issue cuts across party-political differences in many areas. As well as the inflation of recent years, there were many years of austerity and rising inequality in our society and around the world, so improving people’s living standards urgently is something that the Scottish Government, the UK Government and, frankly, any part of the political spectrum that believes in democracy and basic values of equality and human rights need to tackle, because the far right is now a sufficient existential threat to those assumptions about our society. It is very successful—frighteningly successful—at tapping into people’s genuine anxieties about their standard of living, so there is an urgent need to raise people’s standard of living in order to politically inoculate our society against those toxic values. Liz Smith unsafely made the assumption of good faith on the part of far-right politicians such as Trump and, indeed, Liz Truss. That assumption should not be held.

I will look at the record of the two Governments. On the Scottish Government side, there are, of course, positives to talk about. For example, recently, there was the rent freeze, although, sadly, there will now be a cliff edge instead of a taper that would have allowed people to have a soft landing from that temporary policy. There is free bus travel for under-22s, and action has been taken over a number of years on the cost of the school day. There is the continued commitment to free prescriptions, and we do not saddle students with tens of thousands of pounds of debt before they have even started their careers. There is the commitment to take action on the two-child limit and the winter fuel payment, and benefits—including unique ones such as the Scottish child payment—have been uprated. Therefore, the Scottish Government has taken many positive steps.

I also want to acknowledge the positive steps that the current UK Government has taken.

It sounds as though the cabinet secretary’s argument would be justification for opposing what the Scottish Government intends to do to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Its amendments intend to lock in above-inflation rent rises everywhere, even where rent control areas are in place. Even if it is only at this late stage, will the Government change direction and think again on that?

I have one question on the principle and one that is more practical.

On the principle, there is still a concern that major constitutional change requires democratic legitimacy. When this Parliament was created and given authority over devolved policy areas, the public had been asked for consent for that major change to the constitutional framework of Scotland, and they said yes.

When the UK Government proposed to leave the European Union, much as I regret the fact that the question was answered as it was, at least the public were asked the question, and 52 per cent of people UK-wide and 38 per cent in Scotland said yes. Even at that time, the subsequent constitutional changes that are now represented in UKIMA were not proposals that were on the table. Nobody in any part of the UK or Scotland said yes to those major constitutional changes, and Scotland’s Parliament said no to them.

Whatever changes emerge from the UK Government’s review, how can we achieve democratic legitimacy, which is currently lacking, for the new constitutional framework, which will continue, on some level, to constrain the powers that were given to this Parliament by the public?

Am I right that you are emphasising the consent of devolved Parliaments rather than the consent of governments, because common frameworks rest on governmental agreements?

Professor McHarg has moved on to the more practical areas that I was going to follow up on—the changes that we might actually see as being politically realistic.

I am clearly going to lean towards the view that we do not need such a framework. For well over a decade, the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament made decisions and legislated on areas that impact on business interests and others, while consulting at the same time on charity law, planning law, water-quality regulations and a great many other issues. They heard from the same stakeholders, understood the consequences of divergence or of making different decisions, and made political judgments that were accountable to the electorate on whether areas of divergence were justified. I would prefer that we got back to that way of doing things. However, it seems to be likely that, even if the UK Government wants to put a bit more emphasis on common frameworks, UKIMA or something very like it will remain in the background, with a degree of change.

Professor Horsley talked about shifting the burden of proof. It seems to me that that would be a significant improvement, but I am not sure that it would deal with the question of uncertainty, either for business interests or for policy makers who are seeking to innovate, who would still not know what they are ultimately allowed to do.

In oral and written evidence, there has been discussion about the grounds for exclusion. Should there be a longer specific list of grounds for exclusion, or should there be something that is more open-ended? Could you explore the options and the tensions in having a specific list of policy areas or list of principles? For example, if a devolved Government is implementing a manifesto commitment, that should be protected: there would be a democratic argument for that, or for something that is more open-ended in the exclusions process and how it works. What are the tensions between the approaches?

I have one question on the principle and one that is more practical.

On the principle, there is still a concern that major constitutional change requires democratic legitimacy. When this Parliament was created and given authority over devolved policy areas, the public had been asked for consent for that major change to the constitutional framework of Scotland, and they said yes.

When the UK Government proposed to leave the European Union, much as I regret the fact that the question was answered as it was, at least the public were asked the question, and 52 per cent of people UK-wide and 38 per cent in Scotland said yes. Even at that time, the subsequent constitutional changes that are now represented in UKIMA were not proposals that were on the table. Nobody in any part of the UK or Scotland said yes to those major constitutional changes, and Scotland’s Parliament said no to them.

Whatever changes emerge from the UK Government’s review, how can we achieve democratic legitimacy, which is currently lacking, for the new constitutional framework, which will continue, on some level, to constrain the powers that were given to this Parliament by the public?

Thank you both very much. I would just maybe ask for a trigger warning in advance of anyone using the word “trumped” in future.