Chamber and committees

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.

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?

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?

Like others, I am grateful to Emma Roddick for giving us the opportunity to debate the motion. I have to admit that I am perhaps showing my age, as I will have to put my remarks in a slightly longer context than just those 10 years. I cannot help thinking back to before devolution, because we have a bit of an easier story to tell of our history since then. Before devolution, Scotland had a nasty story to tell of itself—of being a more socially conservative part of the UK in many ways, in which bishops wielded block votes and in which the queer community had venues in basements and physically hid under the streets. That story of Scotland as a more socially conservative place was always false, in my view, but it was a powerful story and, before devolution, some of the queer community genuinely had deep anxiety about what a Scottish Parliament would do with our rights and with the legislation that affected our lives. We did not know.

In those early days, there was that incredibly toxic and high-profile homophobic campaign by, among others, Brian Souter, the head of the Catholic church and the Daily Record: “Keep the clause” and “Protect our children”. That nasty campaign characterised the first few years.

At one point in her speech, Emma Roddick asked what would have happened if the equal marriage vote had gone the other way. I have often wondered what would have happened if equality had not won out in those early years of devolution and if the attempt to create a religious far right in this country had been successful. Equality did win. It was tough getting there, but equality did win through. Since then, we have had mixed-sex civil partnership, which was great progress at a practical level, but certain voices were still allowed to falsely present it as a second-class status, and that needed to be dealt with.

There was an immense amount of hard work by campaigners on those issues, and a dozen other major campaigns laid the groundwork that eventually made it possible for the Scottish Parliament to vote on equal marriage, but always against opposition from the usual homophobic voices as well as from some from the newer religious far-right organisations from the US that have started to base themselves in this country.

All through that, there has been this context in politics that I have regularly tried to challenge, without much success: the treatment of queer people’s human rights as a special matter of conscience. If an MSP from any political party wanted to vote against allowing mixed-race marriage, for example, we would call them out as a racist, and any political party would expel them and be ashamed of them. We do not have that level of principle when it comes to queer people’s human rights. Most political parties believe that it is okay to vote for homophobic laws because such rights are a special matter of conscience, and that needs to be challenged.

Throughout the debate on equal marriage, we had to endure debates on amendments that explicitly sought to frame same-sex relationships as less valid or even to frame LGBTQ people as a threat to others. That was not a new idea and not a new trope, but it was expressed explicitly in the chamber. Despite that, equality won through. It was tough going to get there, but equality won through with one of the biggest majorities of any Parliament voting on the issue anywhere in the world at that point.

Others have mentioned how, in that moment, the Presiding Officer had the flexibility not to enforce the no-applause rule as the campaigners in the gallery stood up and applauded when the vote was read out and the MSPs stood up and faced them back and applauded them. That symbolised what the campaigners for the Parliament had wanted—a Parliament that shares power with the people.

Since then, despite many thousands of couples having celebrated their special day with friends and families—and maybe, if we are lucky, some of them even living happily ever after—we have seen the rebirth and reboot of homophobia, and especially transphobia, on a scale that goes beyond even the nightmare days of the 1980s and 1990s, because it is boosted so powerfully by social media, including quite deliberately by the owner of X, who has sought to deliberately turn that space into one in which hate speech is actively promoted and monetised.

Presiding Officer, we have a great deal to celebrate about the work that was done to allow that vote and those wonderful marriage ceremonies to take place. However, we need to be clear eyed not just about the fact that we have further to go, but about the fact that we have a hill to climb in the face of the new threats that are being brought to us, including by those who have shamefully used this chamber to attack the idea of LGBT-inclusive education in schools in Scotland.

Like others, I am grateful to Emma Roddick for giving us the opportunity to debate the motion. I have to admit that I am perhaps showing my age, as I will have to put my remarks in a slightly longer context than just those 10 years. I cannot help thinking back to before devolution, because we have a bit of an easier story to tell of our history since then. Before devolution, Scotland had a nasty story to tell of itself—of being a more socially conservative part of the UK in many ways, in which bishops wielded block votes and in which the queer community had venues in basements and physically hid under the streets. That story of Scotland as a more socially conservative place was always false, in my view, but it was a powerful story and, before devolution, some of the queer community genuinely had deep anxiety about what a Scottish Parliament would do with our rights and with the legislation that affected our lives. We did not know.

In those early days, there was that incredibly toxic and high-profile homophobic campaign by, among others, Brian Souter, the head of the Catholic church and the Daily Record: “Keep the clause” and “Protect our children”. That nasty campaign characterised the first few years.

At one point in her speech, Emma Roddick asked what would have happened if the equal marriage vote had gone the other way. I have often wondered what would have happened if equality had not won out in those early years of devolution and if the attempt to create a religious far right in this country had been successful. Equality did win. It was tough getting there, but equality did win through. Since then, we have had same-sex civil partnership, which was great progress at a practical level, but certain voices were still allowed to falsely present it as a second-class status, and that needed to be dealt with.

There was an immense amount of hard work by campaigners on those issues, and a dozen other major campaigns laid the groundwork that eventually made it possible for the Scottish Parliament to vote on equal marriage, but always against opposition from the usual homophobic voices as well as from some from the newer religious far-right organisations from the US that have started to base themselves in this country.

All through that, there has been this context in politics that I have regularly tried to challenge, without much success: the treatment of queer people’s human rights as a special matter of conscience. If an MSP from any political party wanted to vote against allowing mixed-race marriage, for example, we would call them out as a racist, and any political party would expel them and be ashamed of them. We do not have that level of principle when it comes to queer people’s human rights. Most political parties believe that it is okay to vote for homophobic laws because such rights are a special matter of conscience, and that needs to be challenged.

Throughout the debate on equal marriage, we had to endure debates on amendments that explicitly sought to frame same-sex relationships as less valid or even to frame LGBTQ people as a threat to others. That was not a new idea and not a new trope, but it was expressed explicitly in the chamber. Despite that, equality won through. It was tough going to get there, but equality won through with one of the biggest majorities of any Parliament voting on the issue anywhere in the world at that point.

Others have mentioned how, in that moment, the Presiding Officer had the flexibility not to enforce the no-applause rule as the campaigners in the gallery stood up and applauded when the vote was read out and the MSPs stood up and faced them back and applauded them. That symbolised what the campaigners for the Parliament had wanted—a Parliament that shares power with the people.

Since then, despite many thousands of couples having celebrated their special day with friends and families—and maybe, if we are lucky, some of them even living happily ever after—we have seen the rebirth and reboot of homophobia, and especially transphobia, on a scale that goes beyond even the nightmare days of the 1980s and 1990s, because it is boosted so powerfully by social media, including quite deliberately by the owner of X, who has sought to deliberately turn that space into one in which hate speech is actively promoted and monetised.

Presiding Officer, we have a great deal to celebrate about the work that was done to allow that vote and those wonderful marriage ceremonies to take place. However, we need to be clear eyed not just about the fact that we have further to go, but about the fact that we have a hill to climb in the face of the new threats that are being brought to us, including by those who have shamefully used this chamber to attack the idea of LGBT-inclusive education in schools in Scotland.

Like others, I am grateful to Emma Roddick for giving us the opportunity to debate the motion. I have to admit that I am perhaps showing my age, as I will have to put my remarks in a slightly longer context than just those 10 years. I cannot help thinking back to before devolution, because we have a bit of an easier story to tell of our history since then. Before devolution, Scotland had a nasty story to tell of itself—of being a more socially conservative part of the UK in many ways, in which bishops wielded block votes and in which the queer community had venues in basements and physically hid under the streets. That story of Scotland as a more socially conservative place was always false, in my view, but it was a powerful story and, before devolution, some of the queer community genuinely had deep anxiety about what a Scottish Parliament would do with our rights and with the legislation that affected our lives. We did not know.

In those early days, there was that incredibly toxic and high-profile homophobic campaign by, among others, Brian Souter, the head of the Catholic church and the Daily Record: “Keep the clause” and “Protect our children”. That nasty campaign characterised the first few years.

At one point in her speech, Emma Roddick asked what would have happened if the equal marriage vote had gone the other way. I have often wondered what would have happened if equality had not won out in those early years of devolution and if the attempt to create a religious far right in this country had been successful. Equality did win. It was tough getting there, but equality did win through. Since then, we have had civil partnership, which was great progress at a practical level, but certain voices were still allowed to falsely present it as a second-class status, and that needed to be dealt with.

There was an immense amount of hard work by campaigners on those issues, and a dozen other major campaigns laid the groundwork that eventually made it possible for the Scottish Parliament to vote on equal marriage, but always against opposition from the usual homophobic voices as well as from some from the newer religious far-right organisations from the US that have started to base themselves in this country.

All through that, there has been this context in politics that I have regularly tried to challenge, without much success: the treatment of queer people’s human rights as a special matter of conscience. If an MSP from any political party wanted to vote against allowing mixed-race marriage, for example, we would call them out as a racist, and any political party would expel them and be ashamed of them. We do not have that level of principle when it comes to queer people’s human rights. Most political parties believe that it is okay to vote for homophobic laws because such rights are a special matter of conscience, and that needs to be challenged.

Throughout the debate on equal marriage, we had to endure debates on amendments that explicitly sought to frame same-sex relationships as less valid or even to frame LGBTQ people as a threat to others. That was not a new idea and not a new trope, but it was expressed explicitly in the chamber. Despite that, equality won through. It was tough going to get there, but equality won through with one of the biggest majorities of any Parliament voting on the issue anywhere in the world at that point.

Others have mentioned how, in that moment, the Presiding Officer had the flexibility not to enforce the no-applause rule as the campaigners in the gallery stood up and applauded when the vote was read out and the MSPs stood up and faced them back and applauded them. That symbolised what the campaigners for the Parliament had wanted—a Parliament that shares power with the people.

Since then, despite many thousands of couples having celebrated their special day with friends and families—and maybe, if we are lucky, some of them even living happily ever after—we have seen the rebirth and reboot of homophobia, and especially transphobia, on a scale that goes beyond even the nightmare days of the 1980s and 1990s, because it is boosted so powerfully by social media, including quite deliberately by the owner of X, who has sought to deliberately turn that space into one in which hate speech is actively promoted and monetised.

Presiding Officer, we have a great deal to celebrate about the work that was done to allow that vote and those wonderful marriage ceremonies to take place. However, we need to be clear eyed not just about the fact that we have further to go, but about the fact that we have a hill to climb in the face of the new threats that are being brought to us, including by those who have shamefully used this chamber to attack the idea of LGBT-inclusive education in schools in Scotland.

It might not surprise the witnesses that my questions follow on quite well from the points that Mr Berman just made.

You mentioned the idea of a price link between the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. You also talked about skills in relation to clean energy infrastructure, and about multiregion loose volume coupling being the solution to efficient electricity trading, which sounds like a wonderfully geeky subject that I will have to read more about.

Those are current issues. I ask that you look ahead as we consider the other changes that need to happen for us to transition to a sustainable energy system. What in the current arrangements might inhibit that transition? What aspects of a review—whether that is decarbonisation of heat, where the skills and experience of other European countries are decades ahead of that of the UK, whether that is building more transmission connections between the UK and other European countries or whether that is the emergence of something such as green hydrogen, the production and export of which could play a significant role—might help to resolve the issues that we will encounter?