Chamber and committees

On fair work specifically, I was not quite clear when I was looking around. Is there a single document, statement or policy that Creative Scotland has adopted that defines what it thinks that it can achieve in terms of fair work practices throughout the sector or the parts of the sector that it engages with, particularly with regard to some of the challenges around casualised or freelance parts of the sector? What responsibilities does Creative Scotland have, as opposed to funding recipients, for achieving fair work in terms of the experience that people have while working in the sector?

It would be helpful to hear more about the action plan as it is developed. I do not know whether it would be possible for you to share your thinking with the committee ahead of its publication, but we should perhaps focus on that as we hear more detail.

Good morning. Obviously, it is a happy circumstance to be at a parliamentary committee meeting hearing witnesses talk about a rising budget and multiyear funding. I guarantee that there will be committee meetings happening throughout this building and throughout this month at which members will be hearing from witnesses who do not have such a positive story to tell.

You will be aware that we have heard—from the previous panel, too—about the wide range of costs and challenges faced by the culture sector, including some parts of it that are not seeing the rising budget that Creative Scotland is seeing. We have heard about workforce and employer costs. We have heard about net zero, both in an operational sense and as part of the cultural response that people want from the creative sector with regard to the climate emergency. We have heard about the transition to fair work, and we have heard some people asking for more flexibility. I hope that nobody will want the sector to go further in the wrong direction on fair work and see the kind of abusive and exploitative practices that are endemic in the private sector becoming more of a problem in the culture sector. That said, achieving fair work in a sector with lots of freelance, casual and short-term employment is a real challenge. There are also issues around accessibility, which itself has many dimensions, as well as the need to regrow audiences.

My worry is that, if Creative Scotland tries to help the sector to do a little bit of all of that, it will do most of it inadequately. The rising trajectory of budgets is a good thing, but is it enough to achieve a response to all the different challenges? If not, how do we prioritise things? What strategic approach can we take with the budget that is available?

That is connected to the work that the Government is doing to review Creative Scotland and the wider landscape. We still do not really know what direction that review will take or how long it will take. How is it possible, in the absence of answers about that process, to know what the strategic approach will be to deploying the resource that is available now in order to meet all the diverse challenges that the sector faces?

It is not accurate.

The Scottish Government’s motion describes child poverty as its “single greatest priority” and as a “national mission”. All political parties agree that it should be such a mission, but it is completely legitimate to debate, as do the amendments, whether the Government’s actions match the rhetoric, and every political party has a choice in how we take part in that debate. Do we really advance that debate purely by making party political points? We all do that, and there is nothing wrong with making party political points in a debate like this, but solely doing that, without also offering positive, constructive ideas of our own, does not advance the debate, move it forward or achieve change in the real world.

Whether in budget debates or at any other time, Greens have always sought to make a difference for people in the real world. Far too many others appear to have no interest in doing that. Some seem to have little interest in reality. The Conservatives’ dismissal of pretty much everything that the Government is doing was bizarre enough, but their leader’s suggestion that the one thing that was wrong with Liz Truss was that she was not in power longer seemed even more bizarre. There was also their failure to recognise the UK Government’s track record—the impact of tax giveaways to high earners and a brutal approach to social security—as well as the familiar ideological debate that we have had before, and will have again, on growth.

The record of even just this country’s economy is that there have been periods of high economic growth while whole communities have been put on the economic scrap heap. Economic growth on its own, without sustained and serious state intervention to ensure redistribution, does not create a trickle-down economy; it creates a hoover-up economy, empowering the wealthiest to further exploit the work of those on lower incomes.

Labour, on the other hand, seems determined, in the early stages of its term in UK Government, to disappoint. I will give credit where it is due: I really welcome the action that has been promised on the minimum wage, especially if Labour follows through on the commitment to abolish the discriminatory age bans. That will be a significant step. I give credit where it is due—but Labour does not seem willing to do the same. Anas Sarwar’s comments yesterday were dismissive of the Scottish child payment, saying that

“we have this pretence in Scotland that somehow welfare is the only route out of poverty”

and that the Scottish Government

“wants to pretend that one single benefit or payment has the answer.”

Neither I, nor anti-poverty organisations, nor the Scottish Government, have ever claimed that it was the answer, but it is the single most effective intervention from either Government in recent years. If Labour was willing to learn from what has worked, it would be copying that policy throughout the rest of the UK, not undermining it here. If the Labour UK Government had that ambition but, for party political reasons, did not want to copy what the SNP had done, it would at least reverse the worst Tory decisions, such as the two-child limit, but it will not. If Scottish Labour had that ambition, it would use the budget process to negotiate for positive, constructive change, but it does not do that either. It also refuses to back progressive tax changes, which can very easily begin to redistribute wealth from the richest to the rest.

I think that perhaps we should both check my speech in the Official Report, because Michael Marra seems to have heard a very different speech from the one that I delivered. However, perhaps he can simply clarify this: what is the budget concession that the Scottish Labour Party has successfully negotiated in exchange for its commitment to abstain?

Those are simple, affordable, straightforward areas where action could be taken right now to cut the cost of living, tackle child and family poverty and ensure better health and wellbeing for people who, today, struggle to meet those costs.

I have sympathy for some of what the member says, but that intervention might be more appropriate on a Labour member’s speech than on mine.

I want to address the fact that the wider life circumstances that people face are hugely important, whether they be in health, education or skills, and in the inequalities there. Those are both the causes and the consequences of poverty. Putting more money into the pockets of people who need it is and always will be a vital part of the response to poverty and inequality. There is nothing to be embarrassed about in saying so. The political right is never embarrassed about demanding tax breaks for the wealthiest in order to put more money into their pockets. Progressives should never be embarrassed about the positive role that social security has to play in putting money into the pockets of those who need it. Cutting the costs that people face in their lives is another critical intervention. Progressive taxation is needed to pay for both forms of action.

The Scottish Government’s motion could be criticised for being a wee bit self-congratulatory, but, frankly, every Government does that—I might even have done it once or twice myself in the past few years. There is nothing surprising there. However, Parliament and the parties represented in it should criticise policies by advancing positive ideas, and that is the Greens’ track record. There is now more progressive taxation in this country; the Scottish child payment has been increased; there is free bus travel for young people; peak rail fares were scrapped, at least for as long as that scheme lasted; school meal debt has been abolished, which has cut the cost of the school day; there has been investment in energy efficiency; and we have seen an emergency rent freeze. That is our positive track record of action. Our current proposals aim to keep the critical elements of the Housing (Scotland) Bill so that we do not continue to impose above-inflation rent increases even in circumstances that justify the maximum action. We are also pressing ahead with the proposed heat in buildings bill. If we get that right, it will cut not only emissions but people’s energy bills and so cut costs for households.

On the budget that we face in the weeks ahead, the Government knows that we are pressing as hard as we can for capping bus fares at £2, to cut costs for people getting about in their daily lives, and for accelerating the roll-out of free school meals. I wish to goodness that Labour colleagues were negotiating hard for such positive changes, or their own priorities, in the budget process. They seem determined only to come up with yet another new way to achieve nothing out of that process.

Presiding Officer, I, too, wish you and all Parliament staff, and members across the chamber, all the best for the festive season, and a good new year.

However, 2024 was the year when the Scottish Government had to admit that it is years behind schedule on climate. In response, the Scottish National Party said that it would accelerate action by providing an energy strategy, a plan to cut car traffic, funding to help agriculture to become climate friendly and a new bill to get Scotland off the gas grid and roll out clean heating in homes across the country. So far, none of that has happened. That last action is urgent, because if we get that bill right, it will cut not only emissions but people’s energy bills. The Government said that it would introduce that bill by the end of this year. Where is it?

Each of the specific examples that I mentioned was promised earlier this year and has not yet been delivered. The First Minister knows that the clean-heat industry will take off only if the Government gives clarity and leadership, so any more delay on the bill to which I referred is unacceptable.

Trust in politics matters. We have just heard John Swinney rightly condemning the United Kingdom Government for breaching the trust of the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality—but that question of trust applies to him, too. The Scottish Government promised to accelerate climate action to make up for its record of failure, but that is simply not happening. The first months of 2025 will be critical for Scotland’s future efforts on climate, because that is when we are due to get new carbon budgets and a new climate plan. Those decisions will determine whether we succeed or fail for the next decade.

How is anyone supposed to trust that the First Minister will do what needs to be done when we are still waiting for so many of the actions that he promised?