Chamber and committees

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice has described the amendment bill as simply a small technical fix to the statute book, but I completely disagree with that analysis. The bill is the Scottish Government’s very public acceptance, however grudgingly given, that its policy that trans women are women has been thoroughly defeated in Scotland’s highest court. Through a late change in the wording of the law and without any equality impact assessment, the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 defined women entirely on the basis of self-identification. It was, we were assured, a one-time-only redefinition that would have no meaning outside the act.

However, as women’s rights campaigners predicted, that new definition was soon used as proof that self-ID was now the law in Scotland and could not be argued against. For Women Scotland, some of whom are with us in the public gallery today, brought a judicial review on that new definition of women, and the inner house of the Court of Session ruled on 18 February 2022 that it was unlawful. The short bill that we are discussing today removes that definition from the legislation. Whether the new definition will have to be changed again—in support of For Women Scotland’s belief, and mine, that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, women should be defined entirely on the basis of biological sex—will now be decided at the Supreme Court.

What is already clear today is that the Scottish Government’s policy that all men who identify as women should be treated as women is, in fact, unlawful. In fact, self-ID has no legal standing. Trans women are not women under Scots law, so it is wholly wrong for any organisation or MSP to still rely on a definition that has now been ruled unlawful and, as can be seen today, has been accepted as such by the Scottish Government. At the very least, the Scottish Government should make sure that it does not fund organisations that are advising it incorrectly and that all processes and policies are being updated to ensure that this does not happen again. I would welcome a statement from the Government on that, especially as the Government is saying that it will introduce a bill on conversion therapy this year.

I am also wondering, as others in the chamber might be, when the Scottish Government will advise its MSPs what the law is saying in this regard. This debacle, after all, was the start of a whole suite of legislation, together with the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 and the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, that is based, as far as I can see, on the demands of lobby groups that the Government is funding. It is entirely symptomatic of the failings of a Government that is pursuing legislation costing hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money that does not reflect the view of the public. I am sure that that money would be much better spent elsewhere. All of that has undermined trust—fatally, I think—in the Scottish Government. Most disturbingly for me as an independence supporter, it has also undermined trust in the Scottish Parliament as an institution.

I am not sure that the action plan is in fact delivering for local communities across Scotland. I want to raise the issue of hotspot areas in the Highlands that are experiencing extreme pressure, due to the number of second homes. In some areas, the proportion of second homes is approaching 60 per cent, which is creating a number of difficulties, as I am sure members in the chamber understand. There is difficulty in recruiting people into public services such as teaching and the national health service, because there is quite literally no accommodation for those people. As the current policies are not working, perhaps it is time for the Government to consider giving communities the power to decide when the level of second homes is getting too high.

To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to its rural delivery plan, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the impact of its housing strategies, including the rural housing action plan, on local rural economies. (S6O-03183)

The dream will never die for the wider independence movement.

I move on to the latest paper, which I have read, although I perhaps wish that I had not. The only surprise was that the Scottish Government wants a feminist approach to foreign policy. I had to laugh at that, because it is feminism that is foreign to this Government—a Government that, let us not forget, is unable to define what a woman is. I suspect that that will make designing international development policy rather tricky for it.

I come back to my initial point: who in the UK Government is scared of the Scottish Government’s papers? Far be it from me to burst the minister’s bubble. After all, in response to my urging him over the past few months to take action on independence, he said that the Scottish Government was hard at work producing the papers. However, they present nothing new and no one is reading them. I say to the minister that this is not the action that the independence movement is looking for. Papers that address the big questions from 2014—

—and move the argument forward would be useful, but the papers that we have are not useful. We need action towards independence. I have outlined a strategy that Westminster would be afraid of, and the minister should look carefully at it.

I thought that I would take up the independence minister’s kind request for me to take part in one of these debates, although he may not be so keen once he hears what I have to say.

We are more than midway through the second pro-independence term of government since the referendum. In response to the Supreme Court judgment, the Scottish Government appointed an independence minister to build the case and rally the cause for independence, and the First Minister pledged to be “the first activist”. However, there does not appear to be any concern in the Westminster system that that will cause any disruption to the continuing union. In a week in which the Prime Minister made a statement in response to a by-election half-surprise, it seems that there is no fear for the union because of the independence ministry.

I am nothing if not practical, and I have already made several suggestions on how we can deliver independence. I have even presented a plan and a potential bill. In a show of bipartisan spirit, I am happy for it to be taken over and put in the Government’s name.

On these independence papers, however, I must say that they are the equivalent of cold dry toast in a buffet of ideas. The hope, the dream and the ambition of 2014 are missing and have been replaced with grievance seeking and a bewildering commitment to doing things in exactly the same way.

It is unlikely that anyone has read the nearly 1,000 pages—I note that Willie Rennie admitted that he has not read the report, and I suspect that Mr Stephen Kerr has not read it either—of what seems to be regurgitation of the prior white paper but which has been carefully distilled to make sure not to offend or to excite anyone.

I will recap some of the highlights from previous papers. There is a migration policy that tweaks the UK plan. It ignores the largest net migrators, which are the Indian and Polish communities. There is a commitment to ending the oil and gas sector, which of course requires a diverse international community.

In its 84 pages, the EU paper manages to spare a single half-page to cover the relationship with the UK, which is our only land-based trading partner and will be our largest trading partner for some time. It complains about the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy and the monetary union, while ignoring the much better plan that the Government advanced in 2016 involving the European Free Trade Association. EFTA and the European Economic Area agreement would solve some of those problems and have none of the drawbacks on fisheries, agriculture or monetary policy. That approach is also deliverable quickly, easily and more inexpensively than EU accession, and it has the uniting effect of pleasing both Brexiters and remainers.

The marine paper is entirely lacking in direction, strategy or plan. I suspect that selling out oil and gas and fishing in one paper made it quite difficult to write, which is probably why it is relatively short.

The social security paper is the best of a bad bunch, but it does not clearly navigate the ageing population. It does not seek to increase the pension or allow many pension-age carers to have additional financial support, and the financial incentive to secure our population’s future is barely acknowledged.

I completely agree with Mr Ewing’s sentiment on that.

The culture paper, which runs to 55 pages, aims to keep both the BBC and Channel 4 and to support exactly the same industries that we have now. It does not bother to look beyond that to smaller creators or other visionaries.

In short, the entire series of papers is a work of art in being completely unambitious. How many people will read them? Not even the people who are taking part in this debate have read them, so I suspect that the answer is very few. The Government hopes that they will be well covered in the media, but I have to break it to the Government that, unfortunately, it seems that the launch of “Celebrity Big Brother” got more coverage today than the latest independence paper. Winnie Ewing has had a couple of mentions this afternoon and I will mention her again. Winnie Ewing got us this Parliament. Alex Salmond got us a referendum. Jamie Hepburn has got us ignored.

A disproportionate number of women are sent to prison for short sentences, and many of them are victims of trauma. Today, the transgender management policy replaced the interim policy following public outcry about a double rapist being housed in the women’s prison estate. The policy fails to address the grave concerns that were raised by the Criminal Justice Committee and the public on the risks that might be posed for female prisoners and staff. When will an impact analysis be done on the strategy for women in custody? How will the impacts of the new transgender management policy be assessed and reported on?

The budget exemplifies Scotland’s being failed by two Governments. As a mid-size European nation that is abundant in natural resources and human talent, Scotland should be thriving for all our citizens, but here we are again in Parliament, voting on a budget that fails even to attempt to weave a Scottish silk purse from the pig’s ear of Brexit Britain.

I am sympathetic to the Scottish Government’s difficult position as the junior partner in the flawed fiscal framework, but my sympathy will run out if the only response to the poor budgetary cards that it has been dealt is hand wringing and finger pointing, instead of substantive action on delivery of the core mission on which it was elected.

Scotland deserves better than a spiral of downstream cuts to public services, and we deserve better than a slashed capital budget and critical investment in infrastructure being hamstrung by decisions that are made in Westminster. Our constituents deserve honesty in forecasting on matters that are important to their lives—whether that is schools’ additional support needs provision or affordable homes—and not a continuing pattern of delayed disappointment.

In 2024, thousands of Scots are still being failed in their basic need for a home of their own. Many children are being raised in temporary accommodation because of the lack of social housing across Scotland. The current desperate situation is not a blip; it is a direction of travel. Proactive planning must replace reactive managed decline, if we are to tackle the challenges of the inadequate supply of homes and unlock the significant economic opportunities of building and sustaining communities across Scotland.

We cannot afford not to act. The downstream consequences of insecure housing and homelessness are devastating to lives, to our society and to the economy. They exacerbate the challenges to sustained provision of health, education and welfare services.

The brutal cut of £205 million in real terms to the affordable housing supply programme budget makes the current target to complete 110,000 affordable homes by 2032 increasingly unrealistic. Soaring build costs and supply chain delays have resulted in house builders going out of business in a climate of housing shortage. The reality is that the affordable housing budget, even as it stands, will now buy less than it could have bought at the beginning of the parliamentary session.

The Scottish Government cannot continue to fall back on its previous successful track record on housing. A recent Survation poll that was commissioned by True North found that 74 per cent of Scots believe that we are experiencing a housing crisis. The Scottish Government is right to blame the disastrous impact of Brexit for construction supply chain issues, labour shortages and the inflationary pressures that are being driven by UK Government financial mismanagement.

However, it is eight years on from Brexit. We were dragged out of the European Union against our will. Scotland has not yet had the right to choose, and Scotland’s future is not in Scotland’s hands. Campaign slogans fade and leave the reality of managing the consequences across all sectors of our society.

The time for hollow words is over. The people of Scotland deserve clarity and transparency from both Governments to enable them to plan their lives with security, and our country’s vast resources must benefit the common weal if we are not to be stuck in an ever-decreasing cycle of pulling our people out of the river. It is time that the Scottish Government went upstream and tackled why they keep falling in.

The Government must publish its promised revised capital spending plan, with it considering both inflation and reduced capital funding from the UK Government. Given that this is the second year in a row in which the budget has been cut, coupled with the increasing concerns across the housing sector as to the viability of the target, we now need an annual tracking commitment from the Government in order to present clarity. That is not to manage disappointment about failed targets, but to address head on the threats to delivery, to allow plans to pivot where required, and to halt the impending housing crisis, with real ambition for Scots.

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its work to further the case for Scottish independence, and in light of the Supreme Court ruling that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence, for what reason its position is that there should not be a referendum at this stage on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. (S6O-03115)