Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am pleased to close on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party in this debate on the Aarhus convention. It has been an important and wide-ranging debate in which people have brought different perspectives from across Scotland and have helped to put on the agenda the importance of the Aarhus convention and our desire to see faster progress on compliance with it.

My colleague Sarah Boyack put things in context when she spoke about the rights that we should all enjoy in Scotland: rights to clean water, open space and access to nature. Our nature is envied around the world—we live in a country that has so much potential.

We also heard about some of the significant challenges that we have experienced in Scotland. My colleague Monica Lennon spoke about nature depletion and the concerns about what is happening to our natural environment. Several other colleagues touched on that as well.

We heard about the frustration and disappointment of so many people at our failure to comply with the convention. I pay tribute to the two committees that raised the debate: the evidence that we have heard in those committees has been overwhelming. It has included the frustration and anger that I spoke about, the challenges that exist, and how much more we have to do to protect our natural environment and to give communities and individuals the rights to protect that environment and access to it. I pay tribute to the conveners, Karen Adam and Edward Mountain.

I recognise the need to hold those private interests to account. I commend Mr Macpherson for his speech and for his championing of the port of Leith and the community interests in relation to it. I recognise such interests in my region, on the west coast, as well.

Access to justice is at the core of the matter, which is why the work of the committees is so important. We heard compelling evidence that, when people are denied that justice, there is a real detriment to communities and to their sense of place.

The lack of action is frustrating. In his contribution, Douglas Lumsden referred to the Government as “letting down rural Scotland”. That is correct, but we heard from Michael Matheson and others that it is not just rural Scotland that is being let down; it is our urban communities as well. People are encountering significant problems, such as with poor health and wellbeing, because they cannot access nature and green space in their community.

We know—and we have rehearsed the arguments this afternoon—about the failure over many years to achieve compliance with the convention and about the many missed deadlines. Over the years, there have been lots of advisory groups and support for the Government on human rights—the First Minister’s advisory group on human rights leadership in 2018, the national task force for human rights leadership in 2021 and the environmental improvement plan in 2023—all of which pointed out the real and significant challenges that exist. However, very little action has come from that.

In fact, in many respects, what we have seen is a move backwards. All of us would recognise that the stalling of the proposed human rights bill and action in that space represents a significant challenge, which is to be long-grassed into the next session of Parliament. Every time the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee takes evidence, that is pointed to as a significant challenge.

Fundamentally, this afternoon’s debate has been about ensuring that people have access to justice. A number of important comments have been made about the review of legal aid and the need to make legal aid more available and accessible. I appreciate that the Government is doing work on that—I am sure that the minister will have something to say about that in his winding-up speech—but the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is working on the issue, too. The issue of environmental courts is one of many that I will not have time to get into, but it is clear that we need to have a wider debate on it.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s debate. It is clear that more action is needed. The Government needs to hear that message, and it needs to respond accordingly.

The principles in the heat in buildings bill were almost the only thing that the Climate Change Committee praised the SNP Government for in what was a damning indictment of the lack of progress on net zero. There is still much risk in the bill and much detail that needs to be understood. Indeed, the minister said that what the bill establishes is not a prohibition but a target. Much remains to be seen with regard to that.

Given that the Government has failed to deliver on its climate change targets and literally broke its own legislation on them, how can the people and industries of Scotland have faith that it will deliver on and meet its heat in buildings targets?

An important part of the effectiveness of Social Security Scotland is the uptake of Scottish benefits. As the cabinet secretary knows, around 84,000 young Scots—around 15 per cent of them—are not in work, education or training, and we know that that can have lifelong effects on people. The Scottish Government’s job start payment is designed to support people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are out of work and receiving low-income benefit for six months prior to finding employment. It has an uptake rate of just 21 per cent, according to the latest statistics. How confident is the cabinet secretary that that payment, which Social Security Scotland is operating, is being targeted to support people into employment and is as effective as we need it to be?

The book of Wisdom in the Old Testament says:

“Length of days is not what makes age honourable, nor number of years the true measure of life;
understanding, this is grey hairs, untarnished life, this is ripe old age.”

Even if you are not a person of faith, I think that that poetry speaks to all of us.

Our colleague has gone too soon but, today and in the days to come, we have an opportunity to measure her life, her love, her contribution in this place and the contributions that she made to so many people. That includes her constituents, and many of the stories of how she helped them we will never know, but we do know of the countless people she would have helped with her kindness, compassion and dedication.

We can measure her life and love for Keith, for Lewis, for Jack and for all her family and friends. The book of Wisdom would say of those bonds:

“Coming to perfection in so short a while, she achieved long life”.

I did not know Christina for as long as so many others in the Parliament, but I found a photograph last week of the Edinburgh pride march in 2022, which was led by Alex Cole-Hamilton, Maggie Chapman, me and Christina. She brought her two nieces that day, and she was so proud to be showing them the importance of allyship, standing with others and standing up for equality in Scotland, so much of which she helped to build.

We had a great chat that day on what was a long march around Edinburgh. We spoke about everything from our shared admiration for James Connolly to who could whistle the loudest when passing people who were objecting to the pride march. Of course, as colleagues opposite would expect, she tried very hard to convince me of the merits of Scottish independence. We agreed to disagree on that one.

However, that is how I will remember Christina McKelvie: on that sunny day in Edinburgh, full of joy, love and energy, on a march for the equalities and human rights of people she stood with for so long. That was the measure of her life. [Applause.]

It is important that we base ourselves in the reality of the situation that we face. There is a grave global context to the spring statement, which we must have at the forefront of our minds if we are to have a serious and genuine debate in this place about our public finances.

Mr McMillan makes a good point about the importance of work. I have said in the chamber a number of times that there are too many barriers to people wanting to secure work so that they can continue to progress. We must ensure that we break those barriers down; indeed, I will come on to talk about that more widely later in my speech.

That budget also confirmed no cut to the Scottish budget, and affirmed a game-changing rise of £5.2 billion to be spent here in Scotland through the largest block grant in the history of devolution. There was also a large-scale package of capital investment in infrastructure across the UK, including here in Scotland, through a renewable future as a result of mechanisms such as Great British Energy. The confirmation in last week’s spring statement that Labour will invest in the Scottish shipbuilding industry through a boost in defence spending was vital, at a time when the SNP is sending Scottish shipbuilding jobs abroad.

I note that, in the cabinet secretary’s statement, she welcomed an increase in defence spending, although, as usual, it is clear that there has been a complete rejection of all the ways to pay for that. I do not think that we have heard anything serious from members on the Government benches about how that should be paid for.

I gently suggest to the Government—[Interruption.] If it cares to listen, I gently suggest to the Government that, at such a dangerous time, a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament is deeply unserious. It does not recognise the real challenge in Ukraine and the issues therein. That is before we mention the impact that it would have on jobs and the economy in my West Scotland region and in my colleague Jackie Baillie’s constituency.

I acknowledge that concern has been raised about some elements of the spring statement relating to social security reforms. It is important that people have the chance to engage in full with the green paper that has been published by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. There is a consensus on the importance of reform generally in the social security system to get more people into work. That is where proposals in the green paper that have been long called for, including £1 billion of employment support and giving people the right to attempt work without risking losing their benefits, are right. That is important, and it is also important that anyone who needs support gets it and that we ensure that we protect those people who do need support.

I am about to conclude, so I will begin to draw my remarks to a close.

These are deeply serious global times. Already, some contributions this afternoon have acknowledged the changing nature of the western alliance and the global economic and political consensus on which so much has rested for so long. That has been fundamentally shaken. Even today, as we await the imposition of universal tariffs by the world’s largest economy on friends and foe alike, the world continues to move at pace in ways that nobody wanted to see and which often do not make rational sense.

Such factors have been referenced increasingly by parliamentarians of all parties in debates and statements over the past few weeks. That degree of seriousness, which is required in debates such as these, is welcome. I do not believe that there is anyone on the Government benches who does not recognise how much those events will impact on our national finances, regardless of whether carve-outs are secured or what the scale of the tariffs might be.

All of that is coupled with an urgent need to spend significantly more on defence in the UK and right across Europe so that we can undertake a programme of rapid rearmament. Those are decisions that have to be made and realities that we must face up to. I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments at lunchtime that the UK will take a “calm, pragmatic approach”, whereby we will engage in “constructive talks” with partners and be “prepared for all eventualities”. Therefore, it is not fair to say that no cognisance has been taken of the situation. Actually, there has been a deliberate attempt to take a very pragmatic approach.

Here in Scotland, we need to be equally calm, pragmatic and realistic about all the factors and what they will mean for our finances and to consider the impact on the wider UK finances. That is the context in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spring statement took place last week, and it would serve us all well in this debate to remember that.

I am pleased that, despite those factors and the significant challenges, which are a worry to many, the chancellor has protected last autumn’s transformational budget. In the past few days, we have seen policies come into place that will make a genuine difference to the lives of many people in Scotland. The uplift in the national minimum wage yesterday—the highest uplift in the minimum wage since it was created by the last Labour Government—delivered a pay rise to 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots. That sits alongside a generational change to the rights of workers to ensure that work is secure and that it supports people who are undertaking it; to end the use of fire and rehire practices and exploitative zero-hours contracts; and to secure rights from day 1.

I do not think that that is something to be ashamed of, as the Conservatives seem to think. The UK Government has prioritised that, because it is the right thing to do to ensure that people in work have the right support.

Is Alexander Stewart seriously suggesting that giving a pay rise to 300,000 Scots—the lowest-paid Scots—is simply a matter of red tape? Is he suggesting that giving people day 1 rights on sick pay or ensuring that they are not subject to fire and rehire or zero-hours contracts is bad?