Chamber and committees

It is clear that the strategic defence review is far more comprehensive and wider ranging than probably any defence review that we have had in the past 25 years, and its clear recommendations have implications in devolved areas.

In recent days, we have heard arguments and points about industrial strategy, but civil contingency is a clear concern, and there are recommendations on co-ordination between civil and military authorities, such as local authorities, health services and the police, as well as devolved Governments. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary outlined what discussions the Scottish Government has had with military authorities and the UK Government to set up the structures that are required to undertake that civil contingency work.

It has been an interesting debate—calm and considered in the main, which is useful. As a number of members have pointed out, the debate occurs in a context, particularly a global context, that is worrying.

We have seen three key facets to the debate. There has been a debate about the values around migration, a debate about the economics and a debate around the practicalities. It is worth considering each one with care.

On values, it is important that we welcome migration, not only because of the values that it brings but because it is the human thing to do. A number of members have reflected on their family histories and talked about being descendants of migrants. Both of my Labour colleagues did, as have others across the chamber. My family on both sides is not originally Scottish. My mother’s family is of German derivation, and my grandparents were interned during the war.

The Scots themselves—that ethnic group—were migrants from Ireland who settled in Scotland. Our country is actually named for migrants, and we should celebrate that in the face of rising intolerance around the world.

However, in order to celebrate and embrace the economic and cultural benefits of migration, we need a migration system that is trusted, that works and that is fair. Graham Simpson made an excellent point in that regard. He juxtaposed very well the need to confront racism with the need for fairness in the system. I will carefully tread through that issue.

One thing that we need to do, as Roz McCall pointed out, is to look at the facts. The reality is that, in mid-2023, net inward migration to the UK reached more than 900,000, and in Scotland it reached more than 60,000. That represents the highest-ever level of inward migration for both the UK and Scotland. It is incorrect to say that Scotland is not receiving inward migration—because it is—but it is absolutely accurate to say that Scotland’s proportion of that has reduced. I do not pretend to understand all the reasons for that, but, having had our share of inward migration fall from 14.5 per cent in 2020 to around 6 per cent in 2023, we need to ask what is going on.

There has been conflation of issues in the debate. We need to take care about what it is that we claim to value. One of the employment areas that has become almost synonymous with migration is the care sector. I understand the worker shortages that occur there, and that is of deep concern. However, if we value social care workers so greatly, why is it that, at £12.60 an hour, the pay rate for social care workers is just 39p above the legal and statutory minimum wage?

Housing starts and completions are falling to levels that we last saw immediately after the financial crash.

I absolutely welcome the debate, and it has been useful to flesh out some of the economic arguments. However, that needs to be done in the round and in context.

I will complete this point.

What has changed in the past two weeks? To repeat the point that my friend raised earlier, what test will the Scottish ministers apply now that they have called it in? Ultimately, who will make the decision? Which minister? Those are vital questions, and their answers would not prejudice the outcome of the decision. Transparency and integrity demand that the Government answer them, but we have had no answer at all from the Scottish Government.

Presiding Officer, I take it that I have a generous 12 minutes, thanks to the generosity of the minister.

In a sense, what we have just heard says it all. We have had no commentary on what has changed or why what has happened has happened, or on why, just two weeks ago, the planning minister said that the application would not be called in, that there was nothing to see here and that the development was going to go ahead, yet now it is not. There was not even the suggestion of a commentary on the SNP’s own amendment—the minister did not mention it once.

So, I will say only this. I do not know about you, Presiding Officer, but, to me, “SNP planning policy” sounds like an oxymoron right now. We should not be surprised, because it comes from a Government that has brought us a few such phrases, including, “Ferries delivered on time and on budget”, “NHS recovery plan”, “Government transparency and data retention”, and “Delivering a national care service”. My current favourite phrase, which, if reports in the newspapers are to be believed, follows secretive meetings on Monday night and plots, is “John Swinney’s continued and stable leadership of the SNP”. That is a self-contradictory statement.

The fact of the matter is that the Government’s decision is a panicked U-turn that has been forced on it because of imminent defeat in this Parliament.

I am happy to give way to Bob Doris. I was going to be very complimentary about him later on in my speech, so he might want to bear that in mind.

Does Martin Whitfield share my reflection that, in a debate in which people have questioned whether the planning system gives confidence to investors and, at the same time, have said that it does not provide confidence to communities, one ends up asking who the planning system is for? It does not seem to be for anyone. Does he agree with that sentiment?

Martin Whitfield is quite right. Planning decisions are important, and the minister has stood up and said that it is important that they have integrity and transparency—I believe that those are the words that he used. However, where is the transparency in what has just happened? What is the difference—

Finlay Carson raises a good point. The issue is that we have to make some very difficult decisions. Indeed, the years to come will require even more difficult decisions. There is a real tension.

This is where I am going to be complimentary about Bob Doris, as I thought that some of the most interesting points were raised by Jamie Greene and Bob Doris. We need a planning system that maintains community confidence and whose decisions, when they are made, are robust and thorough and are made in a clear and efficient manner. The reality is that, for many communities, the planning system feels like a war of attrition. On the flipside, we need investment. Jamie Greene raised that difficult balance.

Of course, in order to get investment, we need a predictable planning system that produces clear results. This is a case study of a lack of such clarity, which does a disservice to communities and to the investment that we seek in our country. It is a bourach that was created by this Scottish Government, which has had 18 years to provide clarity in a planning system that enables the investment that we need in the future while protecting community interests. However, what we have in front of us—when it comes to both the materiality of the decision and the lack of clarity about why the Government has changed its mind—serves as a case in point about the problems that we have in our planning system overall.

Ross Greer made an excellent contribution both on the technical point and on this: the planning proposal has gone on for years; tens of thousands of people have written; there have been hundreds of thousands of objections; and one reporter has overturned all of that, summing up on highly dubious grounds in his interpretation of what the Parliament had passed.

The Government will vote for our motion today because it got it wrong.

Will the minister give way?