Chamber and committees

In Labour-run Wales, the NHS has the lowest satisfaction rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister therefore agree that Scottish Labour needs only to look at its colleagues’ records on the NHS to know that those in glass houses should not throw stones? Will he reaffirm his commitment to ensuring that the SNP Government continues to tackle the longest waits, increase access to care and improve delivery in Scotland’s NHS as a matter of priority?

I am sure that Carol Mochan will recognise that, in Labour-controlled NHS England, levels of dissatisfaction are currently at their highest since the British social attitudes survey began, and it is four decades since that came into being. [Interruption.]

The cabinet secretary mentioned electricity prices in her statement. High electricity and gas prices are the greatest driver of fuel poverty, and I am sure that many people across the chamber will share my deep frustration with the UK Labour Government, which pledged to cut energy bills by £300 but, instead, has overseen a rise in energy bills of £200. Can the cabinet secretary advise what impact that has on delivering the Scottish Government’s ambitions and say what effect that broken promise from Labour is having on thousands of families across Scotland? Will she join me in calling on the UK Labour Government to take immediate action to bring down electricity prices and put money back in the pockets of those who need it most this winter?

It is vital that we continue to stand up for Scotland’s manufacturers, including Alexander Dennis, and to protect skills, jobs and industries. Will the cabinet secretary give us an insight into the challenges that are posed by UK economic policies such as the energy profits levy and, in the case of Alexander Dennis, the Subsidy Control Act 2022? What is the impact of such policies on jobs and economic growth?

The ExxonMobil press statement today points the finger for the decision that it has taken at

“the UK’s current economic and policy environment”.

We have heard about the high energy costs that companies face, the impact of the energy profits levy and, of course, Labour’s tax on jobs, which adds to companies’ woes. Labour seems quite happy to intervene in England and Wales, including at Scunthorpe, but it seems that Scots do not matter. Scotland is, once again, an afterthought. How can we change that? Do we require independence to get things right for industry here, in our country?

It was Anas Sarwar who said:

“Read my lips: no austerity under Labour”.

Now his Westminster bosses threaten to inflict more than £1 billion of cuts to Scotland’s budget. The cuts would fly in the face of the economic growth that Scotland needs, as outlined in Professor Muscatelli’s report. Does the First Minister share my view that that threat proves, beyond doubt, that decisions on Scotland’s finances should be made here in Scotland, with a fresh start with independence, and not by a Westminster Government that fails Scotland at every turn?

Will the member accept an intervention?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the report on regional economic growth by former University of Glasgow principal, Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli. (S6F-04452)

It is gratifying that 740,000 people have benefited from free tuition here, when students in England and Wales are about to face tuition fees of £9,535 per year. Will the minister assure me and my Aberdeen Central constituents that university tuition in Scotland will always be free under the Scottish National Party?

No, I will press my amendment tonight—I have moved it. There is a job of work to be done to get this right. Jackson Carlaw talked about the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body review that Rosemary Agnew is leading and, like him, I think that that can play a part in all this, too. It is essential that we get it right.

We have heard members across the chamber say that they are willing to work together to make sure that it is right. Folk have said that they will work with Mr Simpson—I have already said that I would do so—and folk have said that they would work with Mr Dey as the responsible Government minister. However, amendments in this regard should be Parliament amendments and not Government amendments, or else there will be criticism, I am quite sure, in the future.

The Parliament itself needs to put much more resource into scoping all this out. I come back to the point that I made earlier about the fact that it has taken Mr Simpson 11 months to get to this stage because, quite possibly, the non-Government bills unit is not adequately resourced. This is the Parliament’s job and not necessarily the Government’s job.

We have heard from a lot of members on various issues, some of which I really agree with. The proposal that Mr Cole-Hamilton put forward has to be explored. Equally, I understand Mr Carlaw’s argument that, if such a proposal was put in place, certain folk might get excluded from the Parliament who we would not want to be excluded. However, there are always balances to be struck.

We all seem to agree on the general principles, but it will take a lot of work from all members, as well as the parliamentary authorities, to get it right. I wish the member in charge, Mr Simpson, all the very best as he moves forward with his bill—he has taken on a pretty onerous task. We must all work together to ensure that we get it absolutely right.