The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-08305, in the name of John Swinney, on the transition to a wellbeing economy. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I call John Swinney to speak to and move the motion.
15:33
The performance of any country’s economy is not an abstract concept. The prospects for the economy, as well as its focus, are fundamental to the life chances of every person in our society. They affect the living standards of our people, the ability of people to fulfil their potential and the choices that we can make about how we use our resources. They all, as is at the heart of the debate today, on a cumulative basis affect the wellbeing of our people. That is the rationale behind this Government’s determination to pursue a wellbeing economy on behalf of the people of Scotland.
The cost of living crisis, the obvious and recognised negative consequences of the United Kingdom Government’s mini-budget last September, and the impacts of Brexit are all creating a significant impact in Scotland on the wellbeing of people, businesses, the third sector and our vital public services.
The UK budget last week outlined the gravity of the situation, with the Office for Budget Responsibility estimating the impact on household disposable income over last year and this year—a fall of 5.7 per cent—to be the highest in living memory. That represents the largest two-year fall in real living standards since Office for National Statistics records began in the 1950s, and it means that by 2027-28, real living standards will still be around 0.5 per cent below pre-pandemic levels.
UK inflation has again risen today and, although the OBR has forecast that inflation will fall by the end of 2023, the severe impact on households in Scotland of the cost of living crisis brings home the impact on wellbeing and the lack of economic resilience in the UK economy.
The other feature that both the OBR and the Scottish Fiscal Commission highlight is the slow long-term growth rate. I believe that the OBR has forecast 1.2 per cent and the Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast 1.1 per cent. Will the cabinet secretary outline his thoughts on that relationship? Ultimately, does not having a growing economy make it easier to deliver a wellbeing economy?
That is obviously a significant factor in the performance of the economy, as my opening remarks make clear. The size of the economy, the way in which the economy develops and grows and its impact on people are all relevant to the circumstances and the wellbeing of individuals. One of the key issues that I will come to—Mr Johnson will not be surprised—is population growth, which is a significant factor in the development of any national economy. I think that Scotland is significantly inhibited in that regard, as the Scottish Fiscal Commission report this morning indicates. I will come on to say a great deal more about that particular point.
I am sure that everybody will get a bit teary this afternoon because this is John Swinney’s last speech as Deputy First Minister. Could I entice him to give his views on the various candidates for his party’s leadership and their contribution on the issue of taxation? I have seen a variety of views, and I am sure that the candidates will be keen to hear the Deputy First Minister’s advice about what future taxation policy should be.
I always want to keep myself in proper order in Parliament. I think that I might be straying from that if I were to move into that territory.
I was actually going to say something kind about Mr Rennie later on—
Strike it out!
I am being encouraged to strike it from the record, but I will be more generous. However, I say to Mr Rennie, just to set his expectations in the right place, that this is not my last speech. I will make another one at the end of the debate, so he should be careful what he intervenes on me about before we get to that point.
The budget that was set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week—I recognise the scale of the challenge that the chancellor faces—has, of necessity, had to act to repair the damage that was done by the UK mini-budget that crashed pension markets and led to higher borrowing costs. Decisions have consequences; we are having to live with them and they will have an impact on the wellbeing of people in Scotland.
As we continue to deal with the aftermath of that, today’s debate is focused on how we can achieve a more balanced and sustainable approach to the economy—one that prioritises wellbeing across social, economic and environmental dimensions and recognises interlinkages and the need to address those issues together. That is, essentially, the point that Mr Johnson has invited me to comment on. Yes—growth is important in the economy, but the implications and the impact of that growth, and how we use resources in achieving that growth, are equally significant considerations.
The cabinet secretary will know of my passion about health and the fact that Scotland is the unhealthiest nation in Europe. Does he agree that the key battleground is long-term investment in education in its broadest sense, and that if we are to tackle economic growth, that will require investment in education?
Yes. A good thing about the investment that this Government makes in education is that we now have record levels of young people leaving our education system for positive destinations and having positive outcomes. We also have the largest-ever proportion in our history of young people from deprived backgrounds entering higher and further education. Those are just two examples of the successes that are being delivered in Scotland today.
However, there are cautionary notes, as we can see in the “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, which the Scottish Fiscal Commission published this morning. It provides a 50-year outlook of Scotland’s fiscal position. It contains stark projections that Scotland’s population will age and decline over the longer term, with our working-age population also being forecast to fall, while a slight increase is forecast for the UK as a whole. It is projected that those changes, alongside other factors, will increase pressures on spending, especially spending on health.
I will make a point about the importance of ensuring that we are able to support and sustain population growth. If that report had been written 20 years ago, it would have said much the same thing. However, in the past 20 years, we have been saved from the impact of projected changes of that type by the effects of EU migration into Scotland and the population growth that has come with it. I fear that we are now—I suspect that the report begins to reinforce this point—beginning to see the significant impact of the loss of free movement of people whereby EU citizens are able to choose the jurisdictions in which they live and operate. As a consequence of that, Scotland will suffer more acute pressures.
I agree with some of the concerns that the Deputy First Minister has just cited. Nonetheless, the Financial Times did a very important study just last week that shows a slightly different picture—namely, that although some of the migration into Scotland is coming from different destinations, there are very positive signs in relation to people who are coming here for better-paid jobs. Does he acknowledge that?
I take no issue with that; it is very welcome, indeed. That is about ensuring—our universities are critical to the whole endeavour—that we create economic opportunities through research collaborations. Recently, I visited the University of Glasgow and the magnificent Mazumdar-Shaw advanced research centre, which has been developed with the incredible generosity of Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw and the late John Shaw. It is providing a focal point for investment in advanced research that will create the type of employment opportunities that Liz Smith highlighted. It is also very significant in relation to other sectors, including the financial services sector.
On 6 March, I awarded an apprenticeship certificate to a young man who, three weeks later—about now—is emigrating to Australia. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the fact that people are educated and trained in Scotland is perhaps a double-edged sword? They are in such demand worldwide that many of them seek new pastures. Does he agree that more must be done to try to retain some of the people who are born, brought up and educated here in Scotland?
That is an important objective, but we should also recognise that people will want to move to other jurisdictions for wider experience and economic opportunity. However, we must be able to ensure that we can welcome others into our society. That is where Scotland’s opportunities have been constrained by the folly of Brexit.
Last year, the UK had its highest-ever net migration figure—in excess of half a million more people came to the UK than left it. What is the Deputy First Minister’s analysis of why we do not get enough of those half a million people coming to Scotland to live?
Obviously, a range of factors will affect that. People are certainly welcome to come here. If we look at the labour market data, we have near record lows in unemployment and economic inactivity, and very high—almost record—levels of employment in Scotland. We have a very tired and constrained labour market, so the invitation for people to come to Scotland is clear. It is important to ensure that they can, as a consequence of doing so, benefit from and experience our strong public service offering, which can have a significant impact on their quality of life.
The objectives of the Government in advancing the wellbeing economy strategy, which are demonstrated by the contents of the national strategy on economic transformation, are all about ensuring that we take a balanced approach to economic opportunity in Scotland. We have to strike the correct balance between pursuing investment in our society, attracting international investment, utilising resources and ensuring that we are supporting enhancement of the wellbeing of individuals in our society. Those interrelated questions lie at the heart of the economic strategy that the Government is taking forward.
Why is that necessary? It is necessary because of the challenges that face our society. Whether we are looking at climate change, energy sustainability or wider economic opportunity, all those factors are relevant in judging the approach that we need to take in order to ensure that we create the strongest possible economic foundations for our society. We need to develop an economic model that addresses all those matters.
The underlying causes of the interrelated crises that I have talked about in this speech underline the need to strengthen and transform our economy into one that is socially just, delivers a better and more prosperous future for everyone in Scotland, empowers communities, protects and regenerates our natural environment and builds long-term resilience to the future shocks that will inevitably come our way. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has indicated that the type of economic model that enables us to take a balanced approach—which, of course, is anathema to what we heard on the mini-budget in September—is exactly the right approach.
In 2017, the Scottish Government held a significant conference on inclusive economic growth. From that international event, the idea of forming a coalition with other progressive Governments to develop and advance a new economic approach emerged. That led to the establishment of the international wellbeing economy Governments network, along with New Zealand and Iceland. The group meets regularly to share ideas and good practice and now includes Finland and Wales. Other countries are also engaging ever more closely with the network; for example—
Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that you have taken several interventions, but we are tight for time this afternoon.
I will draw my remarks to a close. That network is now bearing significant fruit through sharing of economic and intellectual thinking between Scotland and other jurisdictions that have significant roles to play.
All that is relevant to ensuring that we create an economy that meets the needs of all our citizens in Scotland—an economy that uses our resources wisely and plans on the basis of investment for the future. The Government’s motion indicates the steps that we need to take to ensure that we turn that into reality in the forthcoming period.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises Scotland’s international leadership in the transition to a wellbeing economy, by not only growing but transforming the economy to one that serves current and future generations, and delivers a prosperous, socially-just Scotland within safe environmental limits, where everyone can flourish; notes that this remains a defining mission for the Scottish Government, including through its leadership in forming the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo) group and delivery of the National Strategy for Economic Transformation; agrees that the delivery of a wellbeing economy requires a worker- and community-led just transition to a net-zero, nature-positive economy that has equality, human rights and fair work at its heart, enabling Scotland to tackle child poverty, empower communities, build community wealth and create a socially-just society; notes the publication of the Wellbeing Economy Monitor, which tracks broader outcomes beyond GDP on issues such as health, equality, fair work and the environment, and the Wellbeing Economy Toolkit, which supports place-based economic development; commends the work of the Cross-party Group on Wellbeing Economy and partners across Scotland, and recognises that independence would allow Scotland to make greater progress, but, until then, calls for the devolution of energy and additional economic powers to the Scottish Parliament to support Scotland's transition to a wellbeing economy.
15:48
Before I come to the issue in hand, I want to say something about John Swinney. He will not know this, but the first time that I knew very much about Mr Swinney was when he was on a poster on my classroom wall, way back in 1997, when he was, perhaps, a bit more hirsute than he is today. My secondary 5 modern studies class had been looking at the 1997 general election, and Mr Swinney was beaming because he had just won the North Tayside seat by, I think, something like 4,000 votes. Although I hope that my lesson was interesting for my modern studies pupils, the election was perhaps not quite so good for me, given that 1997 saw Mr Swinney overturn a traditionally powerful Tory seat. The 1997 election was also the occasion on which we lost all our seats in Scotland. [Interruption.] I do not think that the Scottish National Party should clap just yet.
Once I was elected, I got to know John Swinney pretty well, especially in the education brief, and then latterly in the finance brief. We have probably not agreed on terribly much over the years—in fact, he might argue that it has been very little—but I hope that he will agree at least that we have enjoyed some engaging conversations, one of which I want to refer to in just a minute.
No one could doubt John Swinney’s commitment to public service or to government, and I am very grateful for the courteous approach that he has taken towards me—at least, most of the time—and I thank him for that. I will miss our front-bench engagement, and I hope that he will be true to his word that he will be an enthusiastic participant from the back benches. I take this opportunity to wish him all the best in the future. [Applause.]
The quite unbelievable events that have been taking place inside the SNP in recent weeks—in fact, it is quite hard to keep up with them—will, I suspect, mean that John Swinney feels today a bit like I did in 1997 when I was asked on BBC Radio Scotland why my party had suffered such a meltdown. Maybe I can offer him some advice from that interview. It is perhaps a little ironic that his last debate in the chamber as a senior minister will be on the subject of wellbeing, but that is exactly what is in front of us.
Let me set out my thoughts on wellbeing before I come to our amendment. I want to refer back to one of the discussions that I had with John Swinney when we both had the education brief. At the time, he was—rightly—very exercised about underperforming schools and what to do about them. We were discussing Scottish Qualifications Authority exam grades, the numbers of pupils who were sitting different levels of exams, class sizes and teacher numbers—all valid considerations—but we also agreed that not everything that is important in education is actually measurable. Good education should be about building resilience in our young people, increasing their confidence and self-esteem, helping them to become much more responsible and helping them to understand what it is to be tolerant and appreciative of a team. It is for those reasons that I have proposed my bill on outdoor education. Young people should have those things, and they are not quantifiable.
John Swinney said something interesting that day, and I very much agreed with him. He said:
“Of course, none of these qualities can become a reality for our young people unless they are complementary to, and build upon, the good quality educational experience inside the classroom.”
Why do I refer back to that conversation? I do so because it is relevant to the debate. When people talk about the development of a wellbeing economy, the feel-good factor is vitally important when it comes to delivering better opportunities across the board. It is not measurable, but we know that it matters. The 100 or so leaders from civic society and faith groups who, last year, signed a letter to the Scottish Government about the importance of that made it clear that they do not think that the national performance framework does nearly enough to put in place the basic building blocks on which Scotland can build a better society and environment.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, if the member does not mind.
They are also very critical of the focus on gross domestic product as a measure of economic success. The trouble is that the aspiration to build a wellbeing economy depends on our success in creating the growth and widening the tax base. I was very interested in what Kate Forbes said—and I think that she is absolutely correct—about that needing to be the urgent priority of the Scottish Government. That is echoed in today’s headlines from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Kate Forbes is also correct in saying that continuity just will not cut it. She knows only too well that the focus of the Scottish Government has been elsewhere for a long period of time, and she knows that being tied to the Bute house agreement—when the Greens have rejected the concept of economic growth—is a major problem for the Scottish Government, and more importantly, for Scotland.
In April 2017, and again in June 2019, we debated a Conservative motion on what we should do to deliver economic growth. How we wish that the Scottish Government had listened at that time, because it might just have saved it the embarrassment of Kate Forbes, in her brutally honest way, telling us that the status quo is not an acceptable way to make the best use of Scotland’s undoubted talents. She knows only too well where the SNP’s economic policy has been failing.
I am grateful to Liz Smith for giving way—I will come back to her earlier remarks later. Does she understand that she is on rather thin ice in giving the SNP Government advice on economic policy when she demanded that I follow the Liz Truss budget in September 2022? If I had done, I would have caused absolute mayhem with the public finances of Scotland.
Mr Swinney knows that I was not a supporter of Liz Truss, but I did support some of the principles of achieving a low-tax economy, which are extremely important.
At the time, I also agreed with Liz Truss about the importance of economic growth. Earlier, Mr Swinney cited the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s comments. Economic growth is essential to deal with the problems that the Scottish Fiscal Commission cited. Mr Swinney also mentioned the size of the working population in relation to the size of the dependent population.
Another issue with the delivery of a wellbeing economy relates to the projections for social security spending, which is to increase from £4.2 billion in the financial year that is about to end to £7.3 billion in the 2027-28 financial year. That is £1.4 billion more than the funding that Scotland is projected to receive from the UK Government. That is quite a statistic.
In our discussions about what we have to do, wellbeing is an important concept, but it cannot be delivered unless we are true to the spirit of developing economic growth and we ensure that we can all benefit from an economy that is far more prosperous.
I move amendment S6M-08305.2, to leave out from the first “recognises” to end and insert:
“believes that the pursuit of economic growth and widening the tax base is an immediate priority for Scotland, and further believes that these priorities are essential to underpin the delivery of a wellbeing economy.”
15:56
In the past few weeks, there has been a bit of a parliamentary break or hiatus—almost a holiday. We all know the feeling when coming back from holiday: the family that looked like the model of congeniality when checking in is the one that has the biggest falling-out at the front of the aeroplane on the way back. A bit like when coming back from holiday, it feels that, in Parliament, we are being handed out Government motions to distract us and keep us busy as the aeroplanes are stacked and delayed before landing.
As pleased as I am to be talking about wellbeing, I wonder why, if we are talking about the economy, we are not talking about how we get the country off gas, how we deal with the cost of living crisis, how we fill the skills gaps in key strategic sectors or how we scale up for ScotWind. Instead, let us talk about the wellbeing economy.
However, the wellbeing economy is important because, ultimately, we need to ask ourselves whether we are measuring what we value. I am the first to acknowledge that an economic focus only on GDP is far too narrow. I came into politics with the firm belief that we need to tackle inequality, which is measured and defined by both social and economic injustices.
In Scotland, those injustices are not just ethereal but regional and based in our communities. I have made the point previously that, if we go 30 miles up the road from Edinburgh to Dundee, we see drastic and radical differences in wages, life opportunities and outcomes. What those communities need can be measured by things such as housing, public transport and primary health care. In those cases, there are tangible and measurable economic inputs, with measurable economic outcomes.
When discussing the wellbeing economy, it would be a mistake to think that the economy is somehow not measurable and that growth is incompatible with these things. The Resolution Foundation is clear that it is not a case of either/or. In a recent blog, Torsten Bell made the point that, as well as looking at the distribution of the pie, we need to grow the pie. In fact, it is not easy to change how the pie is divided if it is not growing. The Resolution Foundation makes that point clearly in its “Happy now?” report.
It is about the right kind of growth, not whether we have growth. I am moving the amendment in my name because that mistake potentially lies at the heart of the Government’s thinking. Unless there is growth, we cannot deal with the overarching imperatives relating to the economy, such as technology disruption, demography and the delivery of net zero. To address each of those things, workers are required to be able to do their jobs better and more effectively. They need to use technology to do things more efficiently. Ultimately, we need to deliver wage-led growth, because we need productivity growth to deliver those things.
The issue is that there is confusion from the Government in that regard. In the national strategy for economic transformation, references to growth were comprehensively expunged, but the current Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy says that we need to reset our thinking on the economy.
That is quite an extraordinary statement, but it is not necessarily a surprise. We need to acknowledge that, when this Government came to power, in 2007, it brought with it a fresh approach that was about ambition, focus and streamlining the machinery of government. However, that is not what we have seen subsequently. It is not just about the Government ditching growth—we have seen from it an ever-changing focus, switching from one area to another. One minute, the Government is talking about Scotland being the Saudi Arabia of wind; the next, it has moved on to life sciences technology. Its focus has never really been clear. We have gone from a situation in which the Government was determined to streamline agencies to one in which we actually have more of them, with overlapping purposes and functions.
Ultimately, 15 years on, we see a Government that is focused more on process than on outcomes and that will, when an issue is presented to it, point to another working group being created or another report being commissioned. That is an issue, because we are faced with a serious context. We have an issue with wage and employment growth relative to the rest of the UK. Where Scotland has been second only to London and the south-east, that position is now distinctly under threat.
The figures from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, in its most recent “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, are a wake-up call. The SFC suggests that there is going to be a long-term funding deficit of almost 2 per cent—the figure is 1.7 per cent—driven by the fact that our growth rate in the long term is projected to be just 1.2 per cent.
Ultimately, if we are going to deliver a wellbeing economy, we need a plan to put that right—a plan that grows well-paid, highly productive jobs to grow the economy in the right way. We need to focus on that.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid not, because, in my last minute, I want briefly to pay tribute to John Swinney.
Although I do not believe that John Swinney will agree with any of my critiques of the Government, he will probably agree with some of my analysis in what I am about to say.
John Swinney is a very serious politician. I cannot say that I have always relished facing him in the chamber, but that is a compliment, because he is a formidable person to challenge and probe. He is someone who brings focus, purpose and pragmatism to Government, and those are essential qualities. I believe that, above all, he is a reformer: someone who believes in the power of the Government to do good, and someone who has, I think, applied himself to that purpose.
Although I have my criticisms of the Government, therefore, I do not think that the fault with the Government has been John Swinney’s presence within it—in some ways, it is that there are not more people like him on the Government benches. If that is a somewhat back-handed Opposition’s compliment, it is—believe me—a compliment indeed.
I look forward to John Swinney applying that focus, purpose and pragmatism from the back benches, because it is needed as much there as it is anywhere in the chamber. I wish him well in his future endeavours, both within and outwith Parliament.
I ask you to move your amendment explicitly, Mr Johnson.
I did so earlier, but I will move the amendment in my name now, just in case that was not caught.
I move amendment S6M-8305.1, to leave out from “international leadership” to end and insert:
“potential to be an international leader in the transition to a wellbeing economy, like the Labour administration in New Zealand; agrees that the delivery of a wellbeing economy requires a worker- and community-led just transition to a net-zero, nature-positive economy that has equality, human rights and fair work at its heart, enabling Scotland to tackle child poverty, empower communities, build community wealth and create a socially-just society; commends the work of the Cross-party Group on Wellbeing Economy and partners across Scotland; notes the publication of the Wellbeing Economy Monitor, which tracks broader outcomes beyond GDP on issues such as health, equality, fair work and the environment, and the Wellbeing Economy Toolkit, which supports place-based economic development; believes that the Scottish Government should be doing more to deliver environmental sustainability, including through the delivery of rapid insulation programmes, which would help people improve the energy efficiency of homes and lower energy bills, and notes that sustainable economic growth will be required to successfully deliver a wellbeing economy and a just transition, including by using the extensive powers available to the Scottish Government to create jobs, upskill workers, grow Scottish businesses and channel more investment into high-growth, innovative firms of the future, ensuring that everyone in Scotland benefits from Scotland’s prosperity.”
Apparently it was not explicit enough, so I am grateful to you for doing that now.
16:03
There is probably not sufficient time this afternoon for me to pay full tribute to John Swinney and list all his achievements in office, so I am not going to do that. Nor is there time for me to list his catastrophic failures, and I am not going to do that either, for fear that he might list my catastrophic failures during my time in office.
I have been jealous of John Swinney in his time as a minister, because he is so effective at his job; I regard him as the Government’s sweeper. I do not know how many interviews I have heard on Radio Scotland where I have been none the wiser about the Government’s position at the end of the interview than I was at the start. [Laughter.]
That is a tribute, because sometimes it was better that people did not know the Government’s actual position.
John Swinney has been generous and kind, but equally he could be utterly savage to those who got out of step. He has been confident, but never arrogant. We should all recognise the talent that John Swinney is, and the contribution that he has made to this Parliament over such a long period of time. I think that those on the Government benches will miss him, and I know that the whole Parliament will miss him. I wish him well in whatever comes next.
However, he could not resist putting a little sting in the tail of his motion this afternoon by injecting a reference to independence. Although he did not talk about it an awful lot in his opening contribution, I am sure that he will make up for it in his closing speech.
For me, the debate has highlighted one of the challenges that this Government has faced. Throughout its term in office, it has been attracted to things such as the wellbeing monitor and the wellbeing economy. It attaches itself to wider movements. Some people might say that that is done only to advance the cause of independence, but there seems to be an attraction to process issues, theories and beliefs, if I can put it that way, rather than a focus on delivery.
In Government, it is important that we deliver, and the reason why I am attracted to the whole wellbeing movement is because it is important. In some ways, it is a bit of a frustrating debate because, of course, both are necessary. We need economic strength, good GDP and excellent productivity, but in order for people to have a good life and be happy, well and fit to go to work, we need a fantastic foundation. Therefore, they go together. It is not one or the other—it is not a chicken-and-egg situation. The reality is that we need both.
We have also seen—it has probably been a more common feature of the past couple of decades—that people’s quality of life and their local environment are also really important, which is why Scotland has been attractive to many people who have perhaps come to our universities but also come to enjoy our fantastic environment and our great heritage. All that is in one mixed bag, so it is important not to get fixated on one half of the argument or the other.
However, I get a bit frustrated with the wellbeing monitor aspect, because the judgments on whether some of the measures have been met in the latest report from December are really quite subjective. There is a big debate about whether we are closing the poverty-related attainment gap. If we look at one part of the school population, we can see that we are certainly not doing that, because the gap is just as wide as it has ever been. In other parts, perhaps the gap is closing a little bit, and the situation for school leavers might be slightly better than it was. However, to claim that, as the sum of all that, we are making improvements is a bit challenging.
Equally, the share of GDP investment is classed as being at the maintenance or middle level in performance terms, but it has actually fallen since 2017, so I am not sure how that could be described as a steady state. My point is that you could make an argument on both sides as to whether or not things have improved, but that lends strength to the argument that we need some kind of independent assessment of those measures.
Of course, there is debate about GDP and productivity, why that has fallen and whether it is the fault of Westminster or the Scottish Parliament or whether it is because of other factors. There will always be debate around those issues, but we need an independent element to make a judgment to give us more robustness and confidence that these measures accurately reflect our progress on these areas. However, it is not one of the other—it is both.
The work that the Carnegie Trust has done has helped the debate. Many other organisations have also latched on to it. It is important that we have good measures, because, if we do not measure it often, it does not count.
I want to mention, briefly, the immigration debate. I think that, through the Brexit process, we will probably learn the real value of having an open society that attracts people from across the globe to come here to live and work and to contribute to our public services and our strong economy. Perhaps being deprived of many of those people through the Brexit process will shift public opinion to being a little more in favour of a more open immigration policy—something that I would strongly welcome.
However, there is no doubt that the Scottish economy is in trouble partly because we have not been able to attract enough people. Stephen Kerr makes a not unreasonable point that reasonable numbers of people have been coming into the UK as a whole but that Scotland has not attracted a disproportionate number of those or even perhaps our population share. That must force us to ask questions—
You need to conclude, Mr Rennie.
—about whether we have the right approach to all that.
I commend John Swinney for his contribution to Parliament, and I wish him well for the future.
We move to the open debate. I advise the chamber that we are running behind time, so I have to ask members to stick to their speaking allocation, even if they take an intervention.
16:09
I am delighted to be speaking on the motion. I am chair of the wellbeing economy cross-party group and I am proud to be part of a party and a Parliament that are championing building an economy that is underpinned by a wellbeing approach.
I strongly believe that GDP is not the only effective indicator of our economy. Focusing policy making solely on the pursuit of increasing GDP and economic growth is to the detriment of other social, environmental and democratic priorities. The wellbeing economy approach allows a holistic view that takes into account social and environmental progress, which is core to building a fairer and more equal society.
Our approach must be long term, because investing in our future and communities now will lead to long-term economic growth and prosperity. Bolder action is needed if we are serious about redesigning our economic system and addressing social and environmental challenges.
Our diversion, as a country, from the UK status quo can allow us to improve our social and environmental outcomes. However, we must acknowledge that the majority of our financial levers are still in the hands of the UK Government, which sees trickle-down economics as a plausible outcome.
The wellbeing economy provides a framework for addressing the multiple crises that we are facing. The climate crisis is before us, which, globally, we have only worsened by putting profit before our planet. We are fortunate to have a country that is rich in renewables, creating green jobs and green investment.
The Scottish Government recently published the “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan”, which focuses on the renewables revolution. Our green jobs revolution is under way, with low-carbon production jobs estimated to rise from 19,000 in 2019 to 77,000 by 2050. However, we do not hold all the powers to address the issues at their source, which is why the strategy also includes recommended actions for the UK Government to take in reserved policy areas. That includes sufficient borrowing powers.
That is part of a combined approach of tackling the climate crisis through a wellbeing approach. It seeks to reorientate and rewire the economy to embed equality, inclusion, and environmental sustainability from the outset. Another aspect of the approach—which we have not talked about so far—is about eliminating structural inequalities around race, gender, sexual orientation and disabilities, and recognising our responsibilities towards future generations.
The Scottish Women’s Budget Group has been instrumental in pushing for a gendered budgeting approach, which must be considered as we move ahead with our wellbeing economy approach. Working towards equality is an essential part of building a resilient economy.
In the First Minister’s TED talk in 2019, she said:
“The goal, the objective of our economic policy should be wellbeing—how happy and healthy our population is, not just how wealthy it is.”
The happiest countries in the world tend to be small, independent nations. Just look at Finland, which has ranked first as the happiest country in the world for six years, and which sits alongside us in championing the wellbeing economy as members of the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership. That is an international initiative that we have undertaken with like-minded countries to put the argument for a wellbeing economy on the international stage.
At home, we have all been talking about economic growth, and the Scottish Government introduced the national strategy for economic transformation, which will drive improvements in Scotland’s economy to increase productivity and international competitiveness and to deliver fairer, greener prosperity for all Scotland’s people and places.
We have already heard about the national performance framework, which sets out our wellbeing priorities. In addition, the wellbeing economy monitor provides important updates on our progress and there is growing support for practices such as community wealth building, fair work, purposeful and democratic business models—which I will touch on later—the just transition agenda and the circular economy.
The wellbeing economy cross-party group has met a number of organisations. Willie Rennie mentioned the Carnegie Trust, which has been an excellent group to work with. We have also met Scotland CAN B and the Scotland’s Women Budget Group, along with many others. The cross-party group also works very closely with the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, which recently published an open letter that highlighted the five needs that a wellbeing economy should, and can, meet: purpose, dignity, nature, fairness and participation. Core to meeting those needs is a focus on wealth redistribution, strengthening public investment and ensuring universal basic services and fair wages.
We also need to look at a cultural shift. Just last week, I met Scotland CAN B, which has been championing the cause of business inclusion and training up our business leaders in order to integrate businesses into the wellbeing approach. Scotland is a country with a strong enterprise heritage and has a progressive economic vision to become a world-leading entrepreneurial and innovative nation. We cannot transition to a wellbeing economy with measurement tools and a vision alone. A long-term vision requires cultural change and improved understanding about what a wellbeing economy means.
Just this morning, I was on Tyninghame beach, planting seagrass with WWF as part of its Restoration Forth project, which is looking to restore seagrass that disappeared over a number of years due to overfishing of oysters. We cannot forget the nature emergency that we face here and now. More than 50 people attended this morning’s event, which was a great example of community action. We need to build community action into the process of building a wellbeing economy.
I am delighted that we are debating the wellbeing economy. We must move away from an abstract perception of the wellbeing economy by embedding wellbeing principles in our policy, budgetary, nature and climate-based decisions. I look forward to playing my part.
16:15
What can I say about the motion? I know that we are all being terribly nice to John Swinney this afternoon, but I have to say that he has put together a collection of words that is almost wholly meaningless. Let us be frank—this is just a filler debate. It is a filler debate so that the SNP and the Greens can indulge themselves in some constitutional rants about separation and breaking up the United Kingdom. Paul McLennan did not disappoint—that is the theme that he set.
The debate is intended to cheer up members of the SNP—and, my goodness, they need a bit of cheering up. It is all about killing time until the stairheid rammy of the SNP leadership contest is finished. Given how well the candidates have been trashing the SNP’s record in government, who would still want to lead it?
The amendment in the name of my friend Liz Smith is a reconnection with reality—the reality that we need to rescue Scotland’s economy from the “mediocrity” of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. Those are Kate Forbes’s words, not mine. It is ironic that we are debating a motion from the acting finance secretary on his last ministerial appearance in the chamber when the actual finance secretary is busy traducing his legacy.
A wellbeing economy needs to be a prosperous economy. I always hoped that John Swinney would learn that a nation cannot tax itself to prosperity, but I fear that he leaves government unrepentant on that matter. Kate Forbes wants to talk about entrepreneurship and jobs; she wants economic growth. Some SNP members might agree with Kate Forbes, as Scotland continues to grow at a rate well below that at which the rest of the UK is growing, but they must not tell that to Patrick Harvie or Lorna Slater, whose whole effort in government is targeted at stopping economic growth. [Interruption.] I agree with my friend Graham Simpson that they do a good job.
To them, economic growth is all about stuff—and I say that they are right. By “stuff”, I mean jobs, increasing wages, better job security, rising profitability, higher national productivity, a growing tax base and investment in our public services. That is the very stuff that they are committed to halting, opposing and destroying.
Wellbeing is, in many ways, indefinable. I find that all the things that really matter to me in my life and that contribute to my personal and family wellbeing are hard or imprecise to measure: love, contentment, comfort, security and peace of mind. Those things and many others make people feel happy. Wellbeing is about much more than happiness. It is about being able to cope when things are not going as well as they could be. As Liz Smith said, it is about resilience. It is about independence—personal independence.
Although I am not of the view that the Government is the answer to all our problems, there is work that can be done, especially in helping our young people. Young people need skills that lead to personal fulfilment. They can get those skills by learning an instrument or taking part in sport, dance, creative writing, drama or art. Too often, we think about those subjects like central planners sitting in an office deciding how many bagpipe players or footballers Scotland needs, using an equation to balance art against science. That misses the fundamental point about education. Education is not only about employment; it is about learning skills that help young people to find fulfilment.
I commend the member for his glorious attempt to build consensus across the chamber this afternoon. He is talking about education. I am a strong believer in early years education and the opportunity that that provides to turn young people’s lives around and give them a good foundation. What more could the two Governments—the UK Government and the Scottish Government—do to try to make that more of a reality today?
I agree with Willie Rennie on both points that he made. My middle initial is C for consensus, and I try to build consensus. His second point was about the importance of the early years. The early years are a very important point in the beginning of the education journey for every single soul.
I return to my premise about learning skills that help young people to find fulfilment. I am talking about the guitar in the loft, the hung-up football boots or, if you will forgive the parallel, Deputy Presiding Officer, a fine cheese, laid down for a future of maturing until it is there to help us through a tough time. Similarly, life skills such as cooking or managing finances help our young people to stand on their own two feet.
How does cutting mental health funding for colleges help any of that? How will cutting subject choice help?
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is coming to a conclusion.
Edmund Burke said:
“If we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free; if our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed.”
Intergenerational poverty is a curse, and I, along with everyone else here, want to break that cycle. Helping people to access employment and gain lasting financial security is a way of lifting that curse. The pride that goes with having a good job that allows one to provide for oneself and one’s family is so important as to override all other considerations when addressing worklessness. Work builds confidence and, when families provide for themselves, they are stronger. Child poverty is solved by addressing the worklessness of households.
I will conclude by simply saying, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the motion speaks volumes about the SNP’s attitude to government. This is a Government of idealogues who put ideology ahead of wellbeing.
You need to conclude, Mr Kerr.
We can hope for a future in which the Government enables wellbeing, but with these two parties in charge, that is never going to happen.
16:22
A wellbeing economy is simply, as I understand it, a drive and commitment to finding economic growth that recognises that, in the long run, sustainability of the health and happiness of people and the planet will lead to an economy, an environment and a society that are far more productive.
In my view—I said this in the summer of 2020—our economic response to the major disruption of the pandemic needed to be revolutionary, not evolutionary. We needed renewable and net zero economic growth, use of natural capital, and technological disruption.
In recent years, there have been competing pressures to return to economic conformity without the energy of disruptive change to reset our economy after Covid, but we have also seen step changes in the take-up and use of digital in businesses and remodelling due to labour shortages.
The economy and businesses have had to cope with constant crises: inflation, supply line disruptions, labour shortages and much besides. That has been disruptive, but that does not mean that there has been no progress towards the wellbeing economy. It has been more embedded than most people realise.
Inclusive economic growth is about saying that measuring GDP is not enough. If GDP measures the economic activity of illegal drug dealing but not the economic benefit of unpaid carers, that begs serious questions of value. A wellbeing economy demands a GDP-plus measure for economic traditionalists.
I recognise that such measurement is in its infancy, but interest in it is growing. The groundbreaking mission-based approach of Mariana Mazzucato, professor in the economics of innovation and public value at University College London, is steadily gaining traction, and her advice to the Government has been invaluable.
The work of the chief economist and counterparts in the wellbeing Governments of Iceland, Wales and New Zealand to establish an internationally recognised wellbeing measure is important.
I welcome, as the Government motion does, the publication of the wellbeing economy monitor, which tracks broader outcomes beyond GDP, on issues such as health, equality, fair work and the environment, and the wellbeing economy toolkit, which supports place-based economic development.
Fair work is being mainstreamed into Government grant conditions. The role that workers in a business or an organisation can play in improving processes and productivity when they are in a supportive environment, with fair work conditions and fair work in operation, can shift the dial on the comparatively poor productivity rates that have held back the UK and Scottish economies.
A wellbeing economy approach is being increasingly mainstreamed internationally, but we have yet to apply such an approach fully to our needs and circumstances. In that regard, the national strategy for economic transformation, which sets the foundations of the approach, is a prerequisite. The strategy’s focus must be on delivery, delivery and delivery. I would guard against the dangers of a broad-brush approach that is spread too thinly in an attempt to appeal to all people. Such an approach endangers the deep delivery model at the strategy’s heart.
I agree with the Deputy First Minister that population growth is critical to economic growth. Independence would enable us to do so much more in that area, as it would in other areas.
The motion asks members to agree that
“the delivery of a wellbeing economy requires a worker- and community-led just transition to ... net-zero”.
On Monday, with other members of the Parliament’s Economy and Fair Work Committee, I visited Ineos Grangemouth, where the challenge is the impact on the workforce, the local community and business of a move to new energies. The evidence of trade unions has been a great advert for the company and the plant. Trade unions identified the existing skill base and the transferability of skills to work that relates to new energy sources.
That will not necessarily be the case in all areas of Scotland. As the committee turns its attention to the north-east of Scotland, a wellbeing economy approach to sustainability and a just transition will be key. That accentuates the need for the more cohesive and explicit green industrial strategy for Scotland that I know is being developed.
Finally, Presiding Officer, I want to turn to the Deputy First Minister. He has been in government and has been lead or acting lead on the economy and finance brief for longer than he probably cares to remember. He has always embraced sustainable economic growth whereby all of Scotland can flourish—indeed, that was his mantra in the early days of government, as an early portent of the economic focus that evolved into the wellbeing economic growth model.
Astute, focused, dutiful and with a relentless and, where necessary, ruthless focus on advancing Scotland’s interest, the Deputy First Minister has been one of Scotland’s finest public servants. [Applause.] He takes no prisoners in debates, but he is also prepared to engage, listen and understand, so that he can reach compromise with his political opponents. That is a masterful skill. His strategic sense and radar when it comes to identifying issues and opportunities for Government policy to attack creatively and problem solve is definitely among the arts of government.
John Swinney, Deputy First Minister, is the best lieutenant that my party has ever had, and he is an example to those who will follow. His work over many years in developing Scotland’s resilience model is also of lasting significance. Indeed, it could be said that a wellbeing economy is, in essence, about building in resilience for people, business and the environment.
For 14 years, I had the privilege and honour of serving at Cabinet level alongside the Deputy First Minister. As he prepares to join us on the back benches—and I tell members that his interventions on Stephen Kerr will be wonderful—I offer him a warm welcome and say to him, “Come on in. The water is lovely!”
I commend John Swinney’s work and the motion to Parliament.
16:28
Presiding Officer, let me add my own short tribute to the Deputy First Minister’s 15 years of public service in government and the sacrifices that he and his family have made to that end. During his appearance at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I was moved to tears as he updated us on his work on the redress scheme for survivors of historical sexual abuse, to which he has a deep, personal commitment. I wish him and his family the very best.
It is in that spirit of reflection that I regard today’s motion. The long history of and rhetoric around economic policy that the Deputy First Minister has fronted for 15 years calls to my mind Shelley’s crumbling epitaph to Ozymandias:
“Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
The scale of work required to deliver a true wellbeing economy is huge. Unfortunately, time and again, this Government has proven itself incapable of driving the systemic change needed to bring about such a transformation in either services or economics. It lacks any coherent economic analysis rooted in the relationship between capital and labour. Instead, it has leapt upon the latest bandwagon—the passing craze pushed by an author, the latest popular economist or the well-intentioned non-governmental organisation—no matter how contradictory those analyses might be.
In 2007, a fresh-faced cabinet secretary called John Swinney called on Scotland to emulate the rock-bottom corporate taxes of the Celtic tiger, aggressively undercutting competitors to find mobile, international capital. In 2008, the same John Swinney believed that we should
“join the Arc of Prosperity that surrounds us”,
including the high taxes of our Nordic neighbours. In 2010, we were to be the world’s first “hydro economy”—I think that Alex Bell had written a book about that. It sounded a bit different, so into the policy pot it went. In 2011, John Swinney embraced Laffer curve economics, returning to the beggar thy neighbour virtue of corporate welfarism and loudly calling for “a lower tax rate”. That same year, we were to be the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”, with John Swinney promising 130,000 jobs by 2020. The year came—110,000 of the jobs did not. In 2016, we had the infamous growth commission, which promised to slash public spending deeper than the rest of the UK as an iron fiscal rule.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you, sir.
In 2019, it was on to Mazzucato’s mission-oriented framework, inspired by that rock-star economist. It was a good book, but terrible implementation—none of the hard stuff, but plenty of the spin.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you, sir.
In 2021, the SNP’s social justice commission backed progressive taxation; 14 months later, the SNP ran on a platform of regressive tax freezes—again—just as it had opposed Labour on progressive taxes election after election.
Economic policy by press release—
Will the member give way?
In one moment, I certainly shall.
We have had economic policy by press release, following fads, cuddling up to commentators and hunting for the headlines, year after year.
Those latter comments about the chasing of headlines could aptly sum up Mr Marra’s contribution to every debate.
Can I just ask Mr Marra for his explanation of why Labour opposed the Government’s budget, which included progressive tax changes, when it came to Parliament in February? I am confused by this great exposition of consistent principle from Mr Marra, who argues for progressivity but, when it is right in front of him, votes against it.
I could certainly point to the regressive pay policy that was within that budget. One of the red lines that we had set was around how we pay public sector workers in Scotland. We have made that point time and again in this Parliament.
A real wellbeing economy, as defined by Kate Raworth, Katherine Trebeck and others, is based on the political recognition that the resources of this planet and this country are finite, acknowledging that extractive growth has limits that we must exist within.
It is no new observation that gross domestic product as a solitary goal sends us in the wrong direction. As Bobby Kennedy said back in 1968, GDP
“measures everything except that which is worth while”.
By Kennedy’s account, we better evaluate our economy by
“the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play ... the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.”
Inherently, that all makes the central challenge on economic management one of distribution: how are the proceeds of economic activity allocated? Time and again, for 15 years, this Government has failed on those questions of wealth and distribution. It is for those reasons as much as any other reason that I am deeply sceptical that we are to believe that a wellbeing economy will amount to anything more than the bandwagon upon which the Deputy First Minister happened to leave town.
Left behind are the three contenders for First Minister. Two of them are falling over each other to ditch the growth commission and to tell the sorry truth about the record of this sorry Government that they have served in for years. The other is advised on the economy by a man who thinks that a central bank is a photocopier in a Portakabin.
More of the same is not a manifesto; it is an acceptance of mediocrity.
“Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
The wellbeing economy is a huge subject and no one speaker can give it the justice that it deserves, so I will try to focus my remarks on just a few aspects.
First, we cannot and should not ignore gross domestic product, gross national income or any other method of measuring how the economy is doing. Those will remain important measures of Scotland’s economic success. Clearly, it is because we have a strong economy and are a relatively rich country that we can afford to pay for the quality health, education, transport and other public services that we have. We just need to look around the world to see much poorer developing countries that struggle to afford many public services at all. However, as has been said, GDP is a poor metric of human wellbeing. The Tory amendment virtually sidelines the concept of wellbeing. It drops out any mention of the socially just, of net zero, of child poverty, of fair work and of empowering communities—all of that goes in the Tory amendment.
The Mental Health Foundation’s briefing makes the point that people in New Zealand started to question why, when GDP was rising, the things that citizens valued, such as child wellbeing, housing and mental health, were deteriorating. Clearly, GDP can be strong and rising, but we as a society can be failing at the same time.
We have the national performance framework, and we should pay particular tribute to John Swinney for that. It may not be perfect and it is up for review, but it has certainly widened the debate and helped to clarify where we want to go as a country. I do not think that I—in fact, I do not think that most of us—have talked about the NPF as much as we should have. I am wearing my NPF badge today, but I do not see many around chamber. We still need to talk about it a lot more, and to encourage more citizens and organisations to engage with it. Two of the national outcomes, economy and poverty, include national indicators such as tackling income inequalities and wealth inequalities. We have not made as much progress on those as I would like to have seen.
I will give some facts and figures. Scotland’s richest 20 families own more wealth than 30 per cent of the poorest families. Scotland’s richest 10 per cent of households have 217 times more wealth than the least wealthy 10 per cent of households. Those are signs of failure. Although we need to create more income and wealth, we also need to better distribute what we have. As the OECD says, we cannot continue with the attitude of
“grow first, redistribute and clean up later.”
In an ideal world, we would see better-off people exercising more self-restraint, for example by refusing a salary of £300,000 if it is offered to them. However, realistically, that is not going to happen in many cases. As in all countries, some people in Scotland seek more and more for themselves, even if it means that there is less and less for others. Therefore, at least part of the answer needs to be taxation, which can help to more evenly distribute both income and wealth, as well as clearly providing funding for public services and investment. No one is suggesting that we return to the 98 per cent income tax rate that I remember the Labour Party imposing in the past. However, something is not working at present when some have so much income and some have so little.
Income tax is reasonably progressive in the UK, and more so in Scotland, but our wealth and property taxes are not so progressive. Council tax needs reforming and replacing, and I very much hope the new Government will be urgent about addressing that.
We have received a number of briefings for the debate that have been helpful and I am grateful for them. Some are very aspirational: for example, everyone should have enough to live in comfort, safety and happiness, with poverty a thing of the past. I agree with that as the ultimate aim, but I fear that it is some way ahead.
The Carnegie UK Trust talks about gross domestic wellbeing and the delivery later this year of a wellbeing index for Scotland and the UK. That looks like the kind of thing that we should be considering very seriously. Oxfam and several others in their briefings support having a commissioner for the wellbeing of future generations or similar, which we recently discussed at the cross-party group on international development. I am wary of multiplying the number of commissioners, as that can divert resources away from front-line services, but I agree that each needs to be looked at on its own merits.
A key aspect of wellbeing is that we bear in mind the impact on both future generations and other people across the world. There is no success for this country if we maximise wellbeing only for people in Scotland and only for the next 20 years. Although we want to maximise wellbeing, we need to constantly think about what effect our actions are having on our children, our grandchildren and our friends and neighbours in Malawi and elsewhere.
Of course, a lot of this agenda would be easier with independence. There would be no nuclear weapons; we could combine income tax and national insurance and make them more progressive; and we could control corporate and wealth taxes. However, I agree that we need to do the best that we can in the meantime.
Finally, I say that we need to be bold enough to take actual practical steps towards a wellbeing economy. One current example of what I am talking about is the deposit return scheme. Of course, I want to see Scottish products such as whisky, Irn Bru, salmon and beef doing well on the world stage, but if Irn Bru cans and whisky bottles are littering our cities and countryside while the producers make big profits, something has gone wrong. That is not a wellbeing economy. It is not a question of how councils can pick up all the rubbish; it is about changing the system so that the cans and bottles are not dumped in the first place. I hope that we can all agree today to change the way that we do things.
16:41
I welcome this debate. I am glad that we are talking explicitly about the wellbeing economy and I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute on this important motion. Greens used to have to wait for our rare Opposition day debate to bring about a discussion on the nature of economic growth—now everyone is doing it.
I thank John Swinney for the conversations that we have had on this and many other topics. I wish him well and look forward to seeing him cause trouble from the back benches.
The motion sets out the vision that we share of a Scotland that works for everyone and nurtures everyone; a Scotland that creates communities of justice, care and real prosperity; and a Scotland that treasures and protects its natural environment, not just for our sake but for its own sake and the sake of generations to come. We can agree—at least, most of us can—that that is what we are setting our sails towards, and that that is what we mean by wellbeing.
However, the more contentious question is this: how do we get there? Do we prioritise economic growth with wellbeing as an added extra—something that we hope will come along for the ride; something that we will encourage with little nudges and some gentle pottering around the edges—or do we consciously choose wellbeing and choose to prioritise the good of people and planet in all the ways that the motion encompasses? That choice will involve growth for many sectors—those we need for a sustainable, caring and creative future—but not all, and rightly so.
Growth is a positive word, imbued with millennia of good associations. We see the growth of a tree, a child or a community and we rejoice. However, economic growth—GDP—measures neither health nor development, neither care nor creativity, but only the narrowly defined product of economic exchange. GDP increases with disaster and contracts with generosity. It makes no distinction between price and value, or between healthy nutrition and catastrophic consumption. It only asks, “How much?”—never “For whom?”, “Why?” or “How?”—and when we only ask, “How much?”, those positioned to answer are those who have the most already.
Making money out of money is not hard—except, perhaps, for Liz Truss—especially for people with the right connections. The tough bit is to get it where it is needed. Prioritising economic growth and privileging GDP cannot help but reward the rich and punish the poor. In its obsession with counting, it cannot help but see the natural world as a warehouse of raw commodities and view ecological destruction as an externality at the edges that is regrettable but inevitable.
This is where the fixation on GDP—that paltry measure only ever meant to fill in some statistical gaps—has brought us as a global community: to the overlapping crises of inequality, injustice and ecological and climate breakdown. It is a path that the current Westminster Government is happy to continue along, even after this week’s heartbreakingly clear warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is, it seems, no other path that those in power can even see, never mind have the integrity to take. Brashly by Johnson, bizarrely by Truss and blandly by Sunak, they will keep on singing the only song they know, even as the darkness deepens.
However, we can do things differently and achieve different results—transforming not just our economy but our society, communities, families and futures. That is not a niche perspective. Just a few months ago, more than 100 charities, academics and others—including Oxfam, the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association, Scottish Women’s Aid, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the NSPCC—wrote to the First Minister to call for an urgent transition to a wellbeing economy that
“delivers good lives for all people and protects the health of our planet”.
Those are people and organisations whose work shows them, starkly and brutally, day after day, what good lives would really mean, and how far short we are falling.
We must go back to what the economy should really be about: creating a better world. We will do that by eliminating the problems that William Beveridge identified of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. We must also build on what we now know—that we must put people at the heart of addressing those challenges. We need to do that work with, and not unto, people.
We have seen the success of community buy-outs, and we need more of that. We need to give workers the right to buy their businesses, and we need to transform the processes of government and democracy in order to put citizens at the heart of those decisions that affect them. We need more participatory budgeting and an end to the hegemony of advice from the big consulting firms and vested interests. Let us rely on our understanding of the world, rather than relying on the people who are most responsible for getting us into this mess.
Of course, much valuable work is being done by the Scottish Government, the third sector and all the signatories of that letter. All of that work—on child poverty, climate action, the circular economy, progressive tax and much more—forms part of the creation of a wellbeing economy.
Especially critical, at the intersection of social injustice and the climate crisis, is the need for a just transition—a radical envisioning of what a post-hydrocarbon, justice-centred, thriving and joyful future looks like for communities across Scotland, with practical plans of how to get there and get there fast. However, without an overarching priority for wellbeing over economic growth, all of those elements will remain disparate and disconnected.
Ms Chapman, you need to conclude.
In conclusion, as long as all that we do has to be slotted into the artificial and archaic framework of GDP, it will never be as effective, revolutionary, transformative or human as it urgently needs to be. Now is a time for critical choice, but that window will not stay open for ever.
16:47
We have already discovered that, a bit like a just transition, a wellbeing economy is one of those phrases that is very hard to define and can mean different things to different people. However, here is how the Scottish Government defines it:
“Wellbeing is at the heart of our national purpose as a country, underpinning our National Performance Framework and reflected in our national outcomes and indicators. Economic activity should serve that purpose as a means to deliver improved health and wellbeing.
Our vision for Scotland is to create a wellbeing economy—an economic system that places the wellbeing of current and future generations at its core. Scotland is already leading the way on this work as a founding member of the international Wellbeing Economy Governments network”.
Deputy Presiding Officer, are we any the wiser? I thought not.
However, helpfully, we have the wellbeing economy monitor, which Kate Forbes launched last year. According to the Scottish Government, that
“will complement traditional metrics like ... GDP and include measures such as child poverty, levels of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity, and fair work indicators to consider Scotland’s economic success.”
At the time, Ms Forbes said:
“Our vision for Scotland’s economy is to create a system which prioritises the collective wellbeing of current and future generations. While traditional economic metrics, such as GDP, will remain important measures of Scotland’s economic success, this new monitor will ensure we are tracking how to build a fairer, healthier and greener economy.”
That is all right then. Liz Smith is looking suitably confused.
There is a wellbeing economy toolkit as well, just in case people are stuck. We also have a strategy—a 10-year one. The national strategy for economic transformation, published last year, aims to deliver that wellbeing economy.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not yet.
How are we doing? The Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland has pointed out some areas where we are not doing so well. It is right to say that too many people live in cold homes. Decent housing is surely a human right, but what do we have here? A housing crisis, not helped by insane Green policies that are driving landlords out of the rental market, meaning that there are fewer homes for rent, which will ultimately drive up those rents.
What about transport? A wellbeing economy would have world-leading and affordable public transport, including ferries. Instead, we have NatRail, a disjointed bus system, ferries that do not sail and roads that would not look out of place on the moon.
Then we have the deposit return scheme, which is meant to increase recycling but will not, and which, as Fergus Ewing has rightly said, transfers money from the poor to the rich. Is that a wellbeing economy?
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I will.
The member is talking about wellbeing economy monitors. Last year, a report from the University of Glasgow and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health said that Tory austerity is linked to almost 20,000 excess deaths in Scotland. Is that a Tory wellbeing monitor?
Speaking about deaths, what about the drug deaths record that is the shame of Europe? That is not a wellbeing economy. Neither are record waiting lists in accident and emergency, and patients struggling to get appointments to see their general practitioner or dentist.
As Liz Smith said, there is a scandalous attainment gap in our schools. That is not a wellbeing economy. Councils being unable to deliver the basics, such as decent roads, because of years of SNP cuts—that is not a wellbeing economy.
It is all very well bandying about such phrases but, at the root of it—again, we get common sense from Liz Smith—we need a strong and growing economy to deliver first-class public services. Kate Forbes seems to get that, but does anyone else in the SNP? Maybe Michelle Thomson does.
Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce put it very well in her letter to the three people who are vying to be First Minister. She said:
“Scotland needs a credible economic growth plan which must be a top priority for every department in the Scottish Government. That can only be delivered if the next First Minister makes economic growth its driving mission”.
She is quite right.
This debate is the Deputy First Minister’s swan song in that role. I look forward to seeing him on the back benches and to possibly being on a committee with him. He is going to find it difficult to perform in quite the theatrical way that we have become accustomed to seeing.
Why? Tell me why.
I do wish him well. [Interruption.] There he goes. I have always found him—
Deputy First Minister, it might be your swan song, but that does not justify the interventions from a sedentary position.
Mr Simpson, you should be concluding.
I have woken him from his slumber, so that is good. I wish him well; he has always been good to deal with. He is great to spar with and I find him hugely entertaining. However, speaking of wellbeing, I have worried about his wellbeing on occasion, particularly when he is roaring with laughter at one of the First Minister’s quips—he throws his arms and head back and guffaws with gusto—or when he is affecting anger at the Opposition. We saw a great example of that last week during questioning about ferries—
You need to conclude, Mr Simpson.
I was, of course, interrupted by Mr Swinney.
I will miss him, and I wish him well for the good of his own wellbeing.
16:54
If we want to live in a country that services the wellbeing of people and planet, we must ensure that each person in Scotland has the means to live in dignity and safety by eliminating structural inequalities and reducing any negative environmental impacts. Scotland aspires to be a wellbeing economy. If the Government is serious about that, it must demonstrate a transformative approach to addressing poverty and inequality through a changing economic model.
As Maggie Chapman highlighted, last year, more than 100 leaders from Scottish civic society supported a joint statement calling on the Scottish Government to make an urgent transition to a wellbeing economy. Although we can talk of Scotland’s international leadership in initiatives such as the wellbeing economy monitor and its membership of the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, it is clear that current actions are not sufficient to achieve the substantial redesign that our economy needs to achieve that vision. We need bolder action.
Without addressing the continuing high levels of poverty and inequality, we cannot properly progress the journey to a wellbeing economy. The December 2022 update of our wellbeing economy monitoring showed that wealth inequality is worsening. This week, an article by the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Olivier De Schutter, addressed why growth is not the “magic wand” to address poverty and why we must focus on tackling inequality and building an inclusive economy. That is because wealth and income inequalities largely cancel out any of the positive impacts on wellbeing that are expected to come from increased GDP.
During the pandemic, there was a lot of talk of building back better, doing business differently, valuing workers and investing in communities. Some of that ambition seems to have been lost as we face a cost of living crisis, but recognising the value of working together and promoting models that put people first is more relevant than ever, and that offers solutions to some of the challenges that we face. We can create a more resilient and robust economy—one that is better placed to withstand external pressures and unpredicted events.
There are calls for the national performance framework to be transformed into a wellbeing framework, alongside measures such as investment in social security and universal basic services, and a reshaping of the business support environment to prioritise enterprises that enhance collective wellbeing.
The review of the national outcomes presents an opportunity to ensure that wellbeing goals are a key part of policy and spending decisions. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has indicated that national outcomes are not driving financial decisions currently. We need there to be better links between the national outcomes and spending decisions to help to achieve them. The Scottish Government’s forthcoming wellbeing and sustainable development (Scotland) bill—it is so overdue that Sarah Boyack’s proposed member’s bill might beat the Government to it—is another opportunity to be bold and to take decisions to accelerate the transition.
I recently chaired a Scotland’s Futures Forum seminar on economic transformation and a wellbeing economy, including what that should look like in Scotland. Speakers from the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland argued that the economic model based on GDP growth needed to be updated, saying that it resulted in a lot of resource and effort being put into failure demand—that is, fixing problems that our current flawed approach has created—instead of reforming the system to prevent those problems. Although the Government’s commitment to a wellbeing economy was welcomed, it argued that the current approach through the NPF and tools such as the wellbeing economy monitor was neither doing enough to influence decision making nor being as participatory as it could be.
We can learn from partners. New Zealand has started building its budget around wellbeing priorities, and it has been consistent in those goals since 2019. The Future Generations Commissioner for Wales provides additional scrutiny around the wellbeing economy agenda, and here, in Scotland, there are local initiatives to be learned from and expanded on, including innovative community wealth-building approaches in places such as North Ayrshire and Dumfries, where community ownership and engagement models are empowering communities.
Tied to the economic model based on GDP is the idea that business success is demonstrated only by high growth, but we know that many businesses do not fit that model. In my role in the cross-party group on the creative economy, I have met a great number of businesses for which that definition of success is restrictive and has a negative impact on the degree to which they are valued and supported by Government agencies.
The report from the business purpose commission for Scotland showed that almost half of people think that the role of businesses in society is to maximise returns. However, a recent Fraser of Allander Institute survey asked what role businesses should have, and almost two thirds of respondents said that they should have a role in finding profitable solutions to the problems of people and the planet.
Social enterprises and co-operatives can make a considerable contribution to the wellbeing agenda, and we must do much more to promote and grow them. We know that they are often more resilient than other businesses, which is an important consideration as we continue to recover from the pandemic and work towards net zero. There is a real opportunity to grow the number of social enterprises and co-operative businesses in Scotland.
Thinking about the challenges that we face in care, childcare, transport and housing, there are real solutions in the co-operative movement. There is a co-operative and social enterprise fund in place, but the amount of money that it receives is fairly small. It is disappointing that those models continue to have a very low profile in the Scottish Government’s economic strategy. The Scottish Government is committed to increasing the number of employee-owned businesses in Scotland to 500 by 2030, but we have to ask ourselves whether that target is on track.
Redesign that prioritises social, environmental and democratic principles is required to achieve a wellbeing economy. Yes, in Scotland we have the ambition, and we can point to some action and some initiatives, but a wellbeing economy in Scotland needs to be more than the sum of its parts.
I ask you to draw your remarks to a conclusion, Ms Baker.
I am on my final sentence, Presiding Officer.
The Fair Work Convention, the national strategy for economic transformation, the just transition commission and more are all strands that must be governed by the principles of a wellbeing economy if they are to work for everyone.
17:00
I find it very meaningful that we are having this debate at a time of great change for the country, as well as for the SNP and the Deputy First Minister. He has been an incredibly important figure for our party and manages to radiate kindness and authority at the same. I am looking forward to trying to learn a few things from him on the back benches.
Since we are sharing stories about the Deputy First Minister, here is mine. It was July 2014 and we were in an Inverness high school ahead of a very much independence-focused question time. I did not get to ask my question, but I marched up to him afterwards and gave him a bit of a hard time, much to the amusement of my history teacher, Alison Roddham. He gave me more than a fair bit of his time before his advisers pulled him away.
I am not going to give him a hard time today. I will whole-heartedly support his motion and go a little bit into why it is important to transition to a wellbeing economy, particularly for the Highlands and Islands.
Crises such as Covid and the cost of living have really brought into focus what our priorities are. They also demonstrate harshly the inequalities that exist in society and how the worst-off will not be rescued—or even really affected—by economic growth that is only on the part of the richest. It is exactly in times such as this, when it is arguably a lot harder to make progress, that we must put that little extra fight into doing it.
Going through these tough times has also given us an opportunity to highlight, support and progress the things that we know are working well, such as the community-led resilience efforts during the pandemic. I was privileged to be part of efforts on the part of Inverness Foodstuff to deliver hot meals to people who were most in need but were not allowed at that time to gather in the church for lunch, as they usually do.
Communities know best what they need and the best way to deliver it in their areas and for their people. We know that resilience is different in Brae, in Beauly and in Bute. Last year, when many of my constituents in Shetland faced a number of power outages, I was reminded of how resilient many of the communities in my region already are—how supporting the community, volunteering and looking out for neighbours are embedded in the lives of so many that I come across in my role.
However, it is not enough to say, “They can manage, so let them get on with it.” We need a Government that will empower communities and provide the support that they need—be that financial or advisory—to be what they want to be. That is why it is so important that there is a focus on community wealth building, on growing the number of people who have a real stake in their community and on redirecting the wealth, the control and the benefits of local resources to the local economy.
The Highlands and Islands are already leading on community empowerment, with 97 per cent of community-owned land in Scotland in my region. That land represents only about 5 per cent of the Highlands and Islands, but it is evidence of our interest in having a say about how our land is used, in taking ownership of our area and in having the freedom to decide our own way forward.
I am very hopeful that community wealth-building efforts will see more ownership of less tangible assets as well. I often talk to constituents and colleagues in Parliament about how unfair it is that we can look at all the renewable energy projects that sit in our region—some of them were researched, developed and built in our region, and the effort to bring them into the world came from the people in my region—and still know that the figures on the energy bills that come through our doors are higher than those elsewhere. A successful, fair, green country cannot be achieved when there remain that level of systemic unfairness and that penalty for people living in the area that is generating the energy that they are being charged extra for.
Being a successful country has to mean more than having high GDP, because GDP tells us nothing about how big inequality is, how much harm we are doing to the environment or how happy or healthy people are empowered to be. Being a successful country has to mean having people at heart, being climate conscious and ensuring that equality—be it in gender, disability, geography or any other characteristic that we know can very seriously impact the chances of avoiding poverty.
We cannot talk about job creation without talking about barriers to work, such as a lack of access to childcare, inflexible working arrangements and a lack of connectivity, particularly in rural areas. We cannot talk about exports without talking about the environmental impact of business actions or about how we can concurrently move towards being a net zero economy. We cannot talk about employment rates without addressing the lack of recognition of unpaid roles—many of which are full-time and skilled. Of course, it is a lot harder to take a rounded approach to all of that when we do not have powers over energy or employment and we do not have the full fiscal responsibility that many members—and many organisations that have given evidence to our committees recently—have called for.
I will end with a reflection. We know that the attitude, “Let’s just grow the wealth; we’ll redistribute it later” and other brands of trickle-down economics lead only to inequality getting worse, so I will never understand why people propose it as though it is a brand new, ground-breaking idea or why UK Governments keep proposing it as though it is a ground-breaking new idea. If you are coming to me with policy, do not talk to me about GDP or private growth. I want to know that you are going to end homelessness, tackle poverty—particularly rural poverty—and uphold basic human rights for everyone. The party that I see doing that is the SNP.
17:06
Many people have paid tribute to the Deputy First Minister today. I will say only that I have treated him with respect and kindness every day, so I do not feel the need to turn up today just to say something nice about him. Perhaps if everyone in the chamber treated each other with a bit of kindness, we would not have such deep division in our country right now, which needs to be healed if we are to have a better economy.
What is there not to like about a wellbeing economy? Well, yesterday I met people who work in a general practice in Lochgelly, and they were deeply disappointed with the announcement because the Government has made promise after promise about a new health centre being built in Lochgelly. They are desperate for that to happen. They explained to me that, apart from the fact that water is pouring in through the roof of the building, it is not fit for purpose and they cannot bring all of the professionals together in the health centre because it is so dilapidated. They were promised a new centre in 2019 and were then promised that it would be built in 2024, but they were told last week that it will not happen until the latter part of the decade. That will push back building of other health centres that are in the queue.
That brings me to my point, which is that we will not have a wellbeing economy while the housing crisis is getting worse and while public infrastructure is decaying and crumbling, along with public services. We need to talk about the here and now and about what we need to address in order to have a wellbeing economy. The Lochgelly health centre is a good example of that.
There is also the issue of housing. I have told the Government time and again that we need a national house building programme. Housing needs to be a national priority, although I keep being told that it is. I was pleased to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy talking recently about the need to build more high-quality housing for people. She said that
“housing must be viewed as a necessary infrastructure in building a better Scotland, rather than a privilege outwith the reach of the majority.”
and that
“a secure, comfortable, low-energy home needs to be accessible to all in a future Scotland.”
The finance secretary was absolutely correct, so how can we talk about a wellbeing economy when thousands and thousands of kids are going to school every day not knowing where they will be staying in the weeks and months ahead? Children are living in temporary accommodation and in damp houses with condensation. How do we expect those kids to learn in school at the same pace as kids who do not have those worries and problems? If we are talking about a wellbeing society, we surely have to start to address the housing crisis in Scotland right now.
I have raised with the Minister for Transport the issue of barriers to people accessing transport. Earlier, Emma Roddick spoke about powers. I agree that, if we are to deliver on housing, the Scottish Parliament needs to have greater capital borrowing powers. Together, we could fight to get those powers.
However, we must also use the powers that we have right now. A classic example of that is the way in which Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, is using his powers. He has far fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament, but he is using them. For example, he has introduced a permanent £2 cap for bus journeys across Greater Manchester. As a result, bus use has gone up by 10 per cent. We need to acknowledge the powers that we have and use them.
We need to invest in the economy and we need growth in the economy, but there is nothing that prevents us from also tackling social issues that exist right now. If we were to provide a house-building programme across Scotland, jobs and skills would be created and infrastructure would need to be put in place. That could not be done in one session of Parliament; we would need four or five sessions of Parliament to tackle Scotland’s housing crisis. We would need to start by giving local authorities more planning powers; they would need more powers to take the land that would be needed to build houses for the social good of people and communities. We would also need to ensure that, over a period of five to 10 years, we provided people with the best opportunities to skill up so that we would have the appropriate skills and jobs.
That is the type of wellbeing economy that I want. It should be an economy in which children are educated to the very best levels and in which they have a roof over their head and a house to call their own. We need to move away from the rhetoric of the wellbeing economy and instead to think about the massive challenges that our communities face right now. We should build houses and invest in education. We could do that right now, so let us move from the rhetoric and start to address people’s real-life experiences right now. By doing so, we will build a wealthier and healthier economy.
17:13
This has been an interesting and, in the main, good-natured debate. Throughout it, there have been eulogies to John Swinney from various parts of the chamber. We have heard so many eulogies that I thought at one point that I would have to cross the aisle and check his pulse to see whether he was still with us, given that everybody was paying him such glorious tributes. However, I hope that he will be with us for some time to come, and I am sure that he will contribute to finance and economy debates, albeit that he will do so from the back benches.
It is good that the final debate that Mr Swinney is leading is on the economy, because in recent years we have had very few debates that have focused specifically on the economy. Perhaps that is no wonder, given the Government’s poor record on delivering economic growth. Since 2014, the Scottish economy has, on average, grown at half the rate of growth of the UK economy. That is not just Conservatives’ perspective. Speaking on the BBC on Sunday, the current finance secretary, Kate Forbes, said:
“the point I’d make about the recent hike”
in taxation
“is of course, that the higher tax is a symptom of the fact that our economy is growing so slowly, and our tax base is not broad enough ... We need to raise the money for our public services because people rely on that. But I’d far rather we focused on expanding the tax base and growing our economy.”
And so say all of us. The problem is that the Government of which Kate Forbes and John Swinney are members has not been delivering the faster economic growth that we all want.
I suspect that part of the problem—I know that many SNP members understand this—is that the party is shackled in a coalition with a Green Party that simply does not believe in economic growth and is actively hostile to it. As Graham Simpson reminded us earlier, that party is, through its policies, whether they are on infrastructure or housing or in the form of the ruinous deposit return scheme, delivering measures that are actively hampering the growth of the economy. Who knows? Perhaps that is a deliberate policy on the part of the Greens to damage the economy, because they do not believe in economic growth.
Another SNP leadership candidate, Ash Regan, seems to get that. She has attacked the Greens’ malign influence on the SNP, and has said:
“We have actually got ourselves into some slightly murky territory at times, and we certainly are not reflecting the views that the public have”.
All three SNP leadership candidates—including Mr Yousaf, who has now joined us and is sitting on the front bench—have now attacked the disastrous deposit return scheme. In principle, the policy is a great idea and everyone should sign up to it, but in practice it has been delivered so disastrously that it has become emblematic of this Government’s failure on the economy.
All that is having an effect on business. I was talking recently to people in the tourism and hospitality sector. They have a long list of policy failures that they believe are holding back their ability to grow their businesses. The deposit return scheme is at the top of the list, but they also highlight the proposed restrictions on promotion of alcohol, which will have an impact; the short-term let regulations, which are overly bureaucratic and are driving people out of the market; and business rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, which are much higher than is the case south of the border, where such businesses have been given 75 per cent rates relief for another year. All those matters are under the Scottish Government’s control, and all of them can be dealt with by the next First Minister.
Earlier in the debate, my colleague Liz Smith referred to the asks that are being made of the Government by the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, and she made the very fair point that all of them will require economic growth to underpin them. It is only by growing the economy and creating more wealth that we are able to address child poverty, effectively pursue net zero and improve education standards. In that respect, I agree with much of what Alex Rowley just said about getting the basics right.
It would not be a Scottish Government debate or motion without a mention of independence. It is mentioned in Mr Swinney’s motion—he did not say much about it in his opening speech, but I am sure that he will refer to it in his closing remarks, so I will get my retaliation in first.
It seems that the Scottish Government has not read the latest economic research that Scottish Business UK published just last month on the economic cost of independence—
Oh!
Before members on the front bench scoff at that, as they do, I ask them this: who wrote that research? It was written by the Scottish Government’s favourite economist, Richard Marsh. He was previously at the Fraser of Allander Institute and was contracted to produce research on behalf of the First Minister’s sustainable growth commission, and he was a member of two Scottish Government expert groups. He is hardly a unionist plant.
What did he find? His report found that the impact of a new currency for Scotland, fiscal consolidation to reduce the gap between Government earnings and expenditure and the impact on trade of an independent Scotland disrupting trading arrangements with rest of the UK—our biggest market—would come at a cumulative cost, in terms of output, of £29 billion every year. Gross value added would be down by £16.3 billion, and wages would be down by £9.9 billion. The loss in jobs would be 253,000 full-time equivalent jobs, or nearly 11 per cent, while the impact on GVA would be equivalent to nearly 10 per cent of Scotland’s economy.
The report paints a devastating picture of what would happen to the Scottish economy in the event of independence, and it was not produced by the Conservatives or by somebody who is unknown to the Scottish Government; rather, an economist whom the Scottish Government itself actually employs produced that research. That is the policy that the current finance secretary, the stand-in finance secretary and every other contender for the SNP leadership have all put front and centre of their policy platform. If they had their way, the Scottish economy would be devastated.
In closing, I join others in commending John Swinney on his contribution to Parliament and Government over many years. However, next week will bring us a new Government and a new First Minister—and it may well bring us a new finance secretary. Will it bring us a new approach to the economy? That remains to be seen, but based on the evidence to date, it is badly needed.
I call John Swinney to wind up the debate.
17:20
At the outset of the debate, Daniel Johnson posed the question about how we define the wellbeing economy, and we have had some important contributions to that discussion. Formidable among those, were the contributions of Fiona Hyslop and Maggie Chapman. Fiona Hyslop went through some of the arguments around the fact that, over a long period—she referred back to my first role in government as Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth—there was an understanding and acceptance that growth had to be developed in a fashion that supported other important considerations in our society and that it could not be growth for the sake of growth.
That was very much the argument that Maggie Chapman advanced substantially in the debate. She made the point that we choose to plan for wellbeing as we plan for growth. I think that that is a fair characterisation of her speech.
When we contrast the speeches of Fiona Hyslop and Maggie Chapman on the question of the development of the wellbeing economy with the vacuous contributions of Stephen Kerr and Graham Simpson, we see the problem that we have in this Parliament—the problem that Mr Rowley alighted on—with the nature and quality of debate at times.
The speeches by Fiona Hyslop and Maggie Chapman were substantial contributions and the speeches of Stephen Kerr and Graham Simpson were insulting contributions of bile from the Conservative Party, and they should be called out.
Can I—[Inaudible.]
Can we have Ms Boyack’s microphone on, please?
You can have my microphone, if you want.
I will just pretend that I am Foysol Choudhury.
In the run-up to the 2021 elections, more than 100 organisations lobbied us to deliver legislation on wellbeing and sustainable development so that we can get the joined-up decision making that we have been hearing about this afternoon. Therefore, as the Deputy First Minister leaves his current post, will he be tempted to commit to my member’s bill on wellbeing and sustainable development, so that we can not only take this debate further but put it into legislation and get the transformation that our future generations need?
Sarah Boyack’s proposed member’s bill raises important and substantial issues that are very much the consideration of the Government in relation to how we take forward the wellbeing economy agenda. Given the length of her experience, Sarah Boyack will understand that I can commit to absolutely nothing this afternoon. However, I am sure that there will be a willing audience on the Government benches for those points in due course.
John Mason, in his usual forensic style, summed up the contribution of the Conservative Party to this debate, because what its amendment does is remove the following concepts from the Government’s motion: “socially just”, “net zero”, “fair work”, “community ownership”, “environmental care” and “human rights”. That sums up what the Conservative Party has to offer us.
A number of very kind things have been said by members and, as has been acknowledged, this is likely to be my final speech to Parliament as a minister in the Scottish Government, unless an urgent question is selected for tomorrow. I will simply try to lean on the Presiding Officer to ensure that that is not the case.
I am grateful to Liz Smith, Willie Rennie, Daniel Johnson, Fiona Hyslop, Emma Roddick and others for their kind remarks. I am very glad that my strategy for handling radio broadcasts has been properly interpreted by Willie Rennie as having the purpose of ensuring that nobody is any the wiser about any of the answers in these difficult circumstances.
I would like to make some remarks in closing the debate and closing the defining chapter of my professional life. I told the First Minister some months ago that I intended to step down at the end of the period in which I had temporarily returned to the finance and economy remit. I fear that I may have prompted the First Minister to do some reflection of her own at the same time.
I was struck by the comments of one commentator about my decision. He said that it was often best to have people asking, “Why are you resigning?” rather than, “Why are you staying?” After 16 years in office, I have to say that I was rather surprised, from time to time, that more people were not asking why I was still here. The absence of such comments may tell us all something, but being reminded that I appeared in Emma Roddick’s school class in Inverness in 2014 is perhaps an indication that it is time to move on.
As a 15-year-old in 1979 I joined a party that had terrible electoral prospects, so my long ministerial career has been something of a surprise. There may be some hope for some in that observation at this moment.
Over my period in office, I have exercised responsibilities across finance, the economy, the constitution, education and skills, Covid recovery, and a multitude of subjects as Deputy First Minister. Of course, I have not achieved all that I would have wanted in my ministerial life. I would have loved, Mr Fraser, to have achieved independence for Scotland, but I am confident that those who follow me will do just that.
In the spirit and substance of this debate, all my work has been focused on enhancing the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Among the many measures that I believe have helped to do that, the concordat with local government, the expansion of early learning and childcare, the renewal of the school estate, the four harms framework for Covid recovery, a fiscal framework that protected our funding, and the budgets that prioritised investment in our public services all rank as significant moments.
But, for me, the policy intervention with which I have been most closely associated and which has had the biggest impact on the wellbeing of some, and possibly all, in our society has been confronting our country’s historical failure to protect children from abuse. The establishment of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, the passage of legislation for a scheme of redress, and the successful operation of that scheme are all now assisting some of those in our society who have been most damaged by their betrayal by others to contemplate recovery.
Those reforms came about only because of a fair-minded and non-tribal spirit in this Parliament. Without wishing to destroy his career, I say that Jamie Greene epitomised that for me on the issue of redress. I have also experienced it on other issues on other occasions. Alex Rowley and Willie Rennie can often get the greatest degree of reasonableness out of me. I have experienced it unreservedly in the partnership that we have constructed and I have nurtured with the Scottish Greens. I say gently to Parliament that there is not nearly enough of that in the Scottish Parliament today, and that I think that our discourse would be the better for it. I agree very much with Alex Rowley on that point.
I know that this will be vigorously disputed by the Opposition—Graham Simpson will probably be at the front of the queue in disputing what I am about to say—but not everything in Scotland today is awful. Yes, there are many challenges—there always will be—but there are also many wonderful things happening. As a tip from an old hand, the Opposition may find that they prosper by being just a bit more positive about Scotland and the work of her Government.
Yes, my ministerial career has been a bit of a surprise to me, but it has also been the greatest privilege of my professional life. I am grateful to the First Minister for giving me the honour of serving as Deputy First Minister, to the people of Scotland for their kindness and to Parliament for holding me to account.
I have done my best. It is now for others to fill this space. [Applause.]
That concludes the debate on transition to a wellbeing economy.
Air ais
Historical Adoption PracticesAir adhart
Business Motions