Chamber and committees

I would like to make some progress.

If Fulton MacGregor acknowledges that, he should vote for our amendment, which makes exactly those points. Quite simply, it is not credible to claim that Brexit is the sole reason that we have labour shortages. It is not just the rest of Europe, because America has shortages of truck drivers, too. Likewise, we have global supply chain problems. We have to look much more broadly if we are to seriously address those issues.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report, which a number of members have alluded to, is a critical intervention at an important time. It highlights the points that I have just raised in response to Fulton MacGregor. We need a broadly based approach.

Critically, I also highlight the points that were raised by my colleagues Sarah Boyack and Alex Rowley. There is an issue about overreliance on immigration that ignores the fact that, fundamentally, inequality and insecurity have been a feature of our jobs market for far too long. Simply seeking to replace the lost migrant workers, as the sole solution, completely ignores that point.

Fundamentally, there are two ways of approaching the shortages in the labour market: either one can seek to bring more people into the labour market or one can seek to invest in skills to boost productivity and thereby the wages of the people who are already in that labour market. The best, or, rather, the worst and most egregious example of that is in social care, as highlighted by Willie Rennie and others. Alex Rowley gave the example of the mileage rate that social care workers are allowed: 25p. An MSP can claim 20p if they commute by bicycle. We are paying social care workers barely more to travel by car than we are paying MSPs to travel by bike. That shows the inequality that we have in the Scottish labour market.

On top of that, we have huge regional inequalities. The difference in hourly output between Edinburgh and the least productive region in Scotland is 50 per cent. Just between Edinburgh and Dundee—a distance of 30 miles—there is a one third drop in productivity.

Those are things that the Scottish Government has the ability to tackle. It has the levers, in its competence, to deal with skills, to support enterprise and to drive investment in infrastructure that can link our cities and places of work—yet it chooses not to use them. It has consistently cut enterprise support and it has cut the skills budget. A number of members have highlighted the fact that such choices are political—they are choices to pursue Brexit as opposed to a more rational approach, or to improve support for businesses, invest in infrastructure and invest in enterprise support—which, frankly, the Government has failed to do.

I am grateful to Douglas Lumsden for giving way. Does he acknowledge that although there are shortages in hospitality on the continent, they are worse here—and worse because of Brexit?

I will pick up, perhaps, from where Fulton MacGregor left off. In a sense, there has been more unity in the chamber today than one might have expected from looking at the motion and the amendments. There has been a stark contrast between what were clearly the pre-prepared, written bits of members’ speeches and the bits where they responded to the debate. There has been acknowledgement that businesses are having to face a number of issues because of Covid, because of other changes in the economy and, not least, because of Brexit.

The most important point of consensus was perhaps the one that Jim Fairlie highlighted. The one bit of text in the motion that we all agree on is the one that says that businesses out there and people in the workforce have shown incredible resilience over the past years. We must pay tribute to them and perhaps listen to them a little more when we consider the solutions, rather than pretend that we have all the solutions.

Unfortunately, however, in what has been written down, we see all-too-familiar approaches from the two parties of government that we have, with one trying to claim that all the issues are to do with Brexit—many of them are, but not all of them—and the other saying that none of them is to do with Brexit.

I agree with much of what Liz Smith said—indeed, there was barely a word that I did not agree with—but unfortunately, when we look at the Conservative amendment, we see that it would completely obliterate the terms of the Government’s motion. We cannot look at the labour shortages that we see across the country—whether Scotland or the rest of the UK—and not conclude that the shortages are that much worse here than in any other part of the world.

I thank the minister and I apologise to Liz Smith.

I agree that it is preposterous to dissociate those issues, but Brexit is a fact and it is not going away any time soon. Does the minister acknowledge that, whether we agree with Brexit or not, the solution is to do with flexibility, skills and getting people who are out of work into jobs as efficiently as possible?

In some ways, I agree with the point that Liz Smith is making, but does she accept that, although Brexit might not be the whole reason, it certainly exacerbates every single one of the issues that she has just set out?

The First Minister just referred to the plight of small businesses. This is a critical time of year for retail and hospitality businesses in any circumstances, but after the past two years it might well determine whether they survive at all.

The budget that was just published forecast £2.8 billion of revenue from non-domestic rates. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the cost of lost tax revenue from business failures that are precipitated by the current restrictions?

The First Minister talked about getting critical support money into businesses’ bank accounts as quickly as possible. What steps are being taken to ensure that that happens?

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

It was heartening to hear about the plans for public ownership of Scotland’s railways. Will the minister commit to full worker representation on the board and governance structures that he has just outlined?

The cabinet secretary is absolutely right that we must get behind the numbers. However, when we do, they show that increases in earnings in Scotland are lagging behind not just those in London and the south-east but those in every other devolved nation and every English region. Why have we still not received the 10-year economic plan, which was promised by the end of the year? Why has it been delayed? When will it be published?

I agree with the minister: what we have managed to do in a short space of time is remarkable.

However, I think that it would be a mistake if we were to approach the debate assuming that everything was perfect prior to the pandemic and that it was merely a question of adapting to the circumstances. Does the minister not think that there is a question about how we used the chamber prior to the pandemic and how we use it in future? Critically, is there not also a question about how the Government uses the chamber? I question whether the Government uses the chamber enough to think out loud. It uses its time to congratulate itself a bit too much, rather than to think about the big topics of the day. Does the Government not need to consider that?

Would Sarah Boyack agree that it is important not only that we do not have endless flexibility on decision time, but that hybrid procedure actually makes family life a lot more possible for members who are parents, especially of younger children?