Chamber and committees

I am sorry if my finger offended anyone.

This is the 10th anniversary of Jo Cox’s death. Only six members of Parliament have lost their lives while serving in office. Jo Cox’s death in 2016 was at the hands of a right-wing extremist, and Sir David Amess’s death in 2021 was at the hands of an Islamic extremist. In the past 10 years, our politics has become more filled with hate, which we should reflect on. We must confront difficult issues, but we must reject the politics of hate and violence. It is up to members to choose which path they want to pursue.

I move amendment S7M-00446.1, to leave out from

“strong and sustained economic growth”

to end and insert:

“only by fundamentally reducing inequality and creating an economy that works for everyone will Scotland be able to tackle division and hatred; condemns racism in all its forms and rejects a politics that aims to pit people against each other, exaggerating differences and exploiting disillusionment for personal political gain; agrees that building a fairer and more prosperous Scotland will depend on delivering economic growth that creates wealth and opportunities across the country and uses progressive taxation to fund strong public services; rejects the wasteful and short-sighted approach of the Scottish Government, which leaves working people in Scotland paying more but feeling like they are getting less in return, and believes that a better future for Scotland is possible but will depend on the Scottish Government finally unblocking housebuilding, reforming the skills system to support industry and workers and creating the energy jobs of the future so that the next generation continues to be better off than the last.”

15:31

Does the member agree with me that, although parties or individuals might not be fascist, they need to think about whether they might be enabling those who absolutely do proclaim and explicitly pursue fascism?

Will the member give way?

I welcome both the Government’s motion and the minister’s comments this afternoon. This is an incredibly important issue and steel is an incredibly important product. Let me make some overarching comments, because I understand the Scottish Government’s reservation regarding the legislative consent motion that is before us today. In a broad sense, the economy is an area of overlapping responsibilities. Although it is reserved within the Scotland Act 1998, many of the key component parts of policy around the economy lie within devolved areas, and therefore it is an area of overlap.

The more fundamental point in relation to this situation is that national security and the economy have become more intertwined in recent months and years than they perhaps were when the 1998 act was being drafted. That is one of the issues at hand here. There are clear matters of national security, but they also have clear economic consequences.

We need to note, as the minister did, that steel is the most important primary product in manufacturing processes. National security requires it. We need to acknowledge the current situation of war in Europe with a belligerent Russia. Taking that seriously means acknowledging that our defence industry is built in steel. Civil contingency also requires steel to build infrastructure.

Beyond that, wider strategic national economic interests require steel. We are very focused on renewables, renewables infrastructure and the electrification of the economy. Those things are built in steel. The reality is that the Scunthorpe site is the last site in the entire UK that is capable of producing virgin steel. Once those furnaces close, they cannot simply be turned back on again—and there is a very real risk of that.

I note Rachael Hamilton’s concerns, but this is not just AN Other sector or AN Other business. If the site closes, that will have very serious and dramatic consequences not just for the whole of UK industry but for UK national security.

Nor is this an isolated action. The UK steel strategy was announced in March, with £2.5 billion allocated by the UK Government through the National Wealth Fund, targets set to boost UK steel production to 50 per cent from the current level of 30 per cent and support confirmed for the development of electric arc furnaces to secure the future of UK steel production.

There is a clear, overarching national interest in securing the steel industry, which I think goes far beyond other considerations. The bill is vital, and it is important that it is expedited so that we have the powers to ensure that the furnaces do not close.

I acknowledge many of the points that the minister made about the circumstances. Unfortunately, the timing of the bill’s introduction coincided with the election of this Parliament, the setting up of its committees and the recess. We should think about how committees can respond flexibly in the future. Although we seek to anticipate the requirement for legislative consent motions, situations such as this sometimes arise and it is important that committees can—as they do—scrutinise consent for such bills. That goes beyond the two Governments agreeing. It is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the consent that it is giving and the powers that are being conveyed to the UK Government by the Parliament.

In closing, I direct members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of Community, the steelworkers’ union.

17:57

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Although the changes will, no doubt, be welcome, I think that there will be disappointment that more fundamental reform is not being considered. On transparency, businesses want not access to their bills online but to understand how calculations are arrived at. On accountability, they want consideration of a single assessor. They also want sectoral equity. Right now, business rates can change as much as threefold between use classes. Why has the Scottish Government rejected a more fundamental review and reform of non-domestic rates?

To ask the Scottish Government what its current estimates are of the cost and timescale required to complete the remaining sections of the A9 dualling programme that are still to be upgraded. (S7O-00091)

The latest tenders are clearly welcome, as they give some clarity about the completion of the A9, albeit some 28 years after it was originally promised. However, the costs require some examination. On a per kilometre basis, the latest sections will come in at around £20 million per kilometre, compared with £6.4 million per kilometre, adjusted for inflation, for the Kincraig to Dalraddy section. Looking internationally, I note that the Faroese Government has built tunnels—new roads under the sea—for £10 million per kilometre. Does the minister agree that it is vitally important that we have cost-effective delivery of infrastructure for economic growth? What lessons is the Scottish Government seeking to learn from international best practice, such as the Faroese example?

Further to Laura Moodie’s question, although we are in the middle of a housing emergency, there was a housing underspend of £98 million, which was 13 per cent of what was budgeted for housing in the 2024-25 budget. That figure equates to more than 1,000 homes, given the number of homes that the Government hopes to build using that funding. Given the context of the housing emergency and the fact that the number of housing completions has dipped below 20,000, what is the minister’s explanation for that shortfall?

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. It contained much that Scottish Labour agrees with, although we might disagree on some of the constitutional conclusions. Indeed, I might go further than the minister and say that I estimate the damage to GDP from Brexit to be between 6 per cent and 8 per cent, based on many measures.

I agree with the minister that our future has to be about a closer alignment and relationship with the European Union. I note his reservations about the forthcoming treaty, but does he acknowledge that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will make a substantial difference to farmers and to the food business, not least by eliminating the bill of £200 per consignment for certificates and easing trade across the Irish Sea—to touch on one of the deep ironies of the hard Brexit deal? Would he also acknowledge the benefit with regard to carbon trading? Moreover, would he welcome this summit becoming an annual event, so that we have further such treaties in the future?