Seòmar agus comataidhean

One has to ask oneself about all the other things that Labour did not mention in its election manifesto. It did not mention an increase in employer national insurance contributions, and that was on top of the decisions relating to the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality—the winter fuel allowance and now, of course, benefits. Labour has a lot to answer for, so, if I was a Labour member, I would keep quiet for the time being.

On top of that, we have Brexit—do not mention the B-word. There is hardly a cheep about that from Labour or the Tories. I wonder why. Could it be because it was never the open door to the world’s markets, including the USA, but the bearer of increased regulations, red tape and costs? Just ask the Horticultural Trades Association. It has also led to undeniable shortages in the workforce. Just ask the soft fruit growers who watched their year’s work turn to mush in the fields. Despite warm words before the general election from Dame Jackie Baillie, there has been no progress on a rural visa pilot scheme.

B is for Brexit and T is for tariffs, because we are now at the mercy of the human wrecking ball that is otherwise known as Donald Trump. Unlike political leaders, I do not need to be circumspect or ca’ canny with my words. As he levies tariffs here, there and everywhere, he disrupts the world’s economy to boot. That is another impact on our food and drink exports. By the way, there never was a special relationship—the dugs in the street know that.

The broad background is that, in 2020, the food and drink sector in Scotland generated turnover worth £15 billion and it comprised more than 17,000 small businesses employing about 129,000 people. Many of those businesses are in rural communities such as mine. I have time to mention just a couple of those, because I have been taking interventions that were really pretty worthless. Traquair House Brewery exports its beer and ales around the world. Broughton Ales has won awards from the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates, the Campaign for Real Ale, UK supermarkets such as Tesco, Meininger’s international craft beer awards and the world beer awards. The Tempest Brewing Co, which was originally in a disused area in Kelso, is now in my patch in the Borders, and it has a very successful taproom at its brewery for people to sample its products. Stow brewery is in Lauder and it produces beers and gins.

Lest people think that it is all about alcohol in the Borders—although there is no problem with that—there is also Tweed Valley Venison, based in Peebles, which makes venison and game from the Tweed catchment area into burgers and sausages, and the fourth-generation retail and wholesale butcher Shaws Fine Meats is in Lauder. Fifth-generation artisan bakery Alex Dalgetty and Sons is based next door to my office in Gala, and it has a second shop in Melrose. It is the producer of the famous Selkirk bannock, which I suggest is best warm with butter.

I have had to skip some, so I apologise for not being able to mention other food and drink retailers and wholesalers across the Borders—I am sure that you are relieved, Presiding Officer.

I say again to Rhoda Grant that I commend buying Scottish and I have breaking news: the Scottish National Party first ran a campaign to buy Scottish more 40 years ago. I know—I was outside the supermarkets, waving flags for it, and it led to supermarkets branding Scottish produce with a saltire. There are some benefits to being older.

I just wanted to say: if only.

To ask the First Minister, regarding any potential impact on planning legislation in Scotland, what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the United Kingdom Government has proposed giving people living near power infrastructure hundreds of pounds off their bills each year. (S6F-03892)

I think that most people who were offered up to £250—because it is only up to £250—off their energy bill to agree to having a pylon in their back garden would consider it a cheap and insulting bribe. Could the Scottish Government make it a condition of any planning consent that those affected by where pylons are to be located should at least benefit from local energy pricing?

I congratulate Audrey Nicoll on securing the debate. She rightly raised the issues of misogyny, exploitation and violence again women worldwide, and they are cruel and disgusting. However, I will confine my remarks to our home turf as I view the progress towards equality that women in Scotland have made during my 80 years and reflect on the barriers then and now.

I did not really notice much in the way of discrimination at primary school. I was keen and quite bright, and the children who had difficulty with the three Rs bore the brunt of the teacher’s impatience. I was also a tomboy, so, until adolescence, when those pesky hormones kicked in, as well as peeveries and skipping, I played marbles and fought over our street territories. One pigtail was always destroyed early in the day, and I regularly had bloodied knees and elbows.

Secondary school was a different kettle of fish. As I was a girl—in those days, Boroughmuir had boys and girls entrances—I discovered cooking and sewing on my timetable. I loathed both and was hopeless at them. Hockey and netball were next on my hit list. To avoid them, I added non-existent science classes to my timetable, which was not discovered until it was too late for me to be disciplined. That was one advantage of keeping a low profile, which was then my modus operandi.

At 16, I was asked by the school if I wanted to stay on. Many of my female friends opted to leave. My father, a very forward-thinking man, left the choice to me. “Boy or girl, you are all equal”, he said. For a working-class girl like me, that was the exception.

The school, of course, had me destined to be a secretary. There is nothing wrong with that, but there was no encouragement to go to university, except from my Russian teacher. I left at 16, but with highers in my back pocket. I looked for a job at what was then Ferranti, as I had higher physics, chemistry and maths. A woman in a white lab coat took me quietly to the side and advised me not to take the job offer because I would be stuck at her level, whereas men were promoted.

I then began as a clerkess in an insurance company, because I was desperate to have some money. After one year of that, I saw that able women were stuck at senior clerkess level, so that was it—I packed it in and went to university.

I am telling this story because the culture at the time, certainly for working-class girls, was to leave school at 16, get an office job, get engaged at 18, marry at 20 and have their first child at 22. Before the pill, there was no hanky-panky until they were married. A pregnant single girl at that time was considered a fallen woman, but it was different for boys and men, of course.

The irony is that, by national necessity, during the second world war, women were liberated into what were men-only jobs, but, as soon as the war ended, they were expected to return—and they did—to domestic-only roles.

We have come some way, but against that narrative, and not that far, really. Girls are still pigeonholed into certain trades and professions. There are not many female plumbers and electricians, but there are plenty of female teachers. It is tougher, as good though we are at multitasking, to juggle jobs and motherhood—it is no easy task. I insert the caveat that there are men, too, who have those dual roles.

Added to that, although there were always pressures on girls about their looks, they are exacerbated today by social media. Are you slim enough? Do you conform to the current model of good looks? Having to conform to fit in has always been the case, but it is much worse these days.

There has been a shift, but not as much as one would expect 80 years on. Marriage is not a necessity and the term “bidey-in” has been lost in the mists of time; it is about having partners. We have women as chief executives, we have had female Prime Ministers and a female First Minister and, often, general practitioners are women, although male nurses are more of a rarity. However, I do not have answers—only questions—as to why change is so slow. Why have we not moved on further in those 80 years?

I married at 25 and had my first child at 27. I had to give up my teaching post for six years to bring up my sons, as there was no such thing as maternity leave and no nursery or job security. We have some of that now—it is better, but it is not good enough.

I congratulate Audrey Nicoll on securing the debate. She rightly raised the issues of misogyny, exploitation and violence again women worldwide, and they are cruel and disgusting. However, I will confine my remarks to our home turf as I view the progress towards equality that women in Scotland have made during my 80 years and reflect on the barriers then and now.

I did not really notice much in the way of discrimination at primary school. I was keen and quite bright, and the children who had difficulty with the three Rs bore the brunt of the teacher’s impatience. I was also a tomboy, so, until adolescence, when those pesky hormones kicked in, as well as peeveries and skipping, I played marbles and fought over our street territories. One pigtail was always destroyed early in the day, and I regularly had bloodied knees and elbows.

Secondary school was a different kettle of fish. As I was a girl—in those days, Boroughmuir had boys and girls entrances—I discovered cooking and sewing on my timetable. I loathed both and was hopeless at them. Hockey and netball were next on my hit list. To avoid them, I added non-existent science classes to my timetable, which was not discovered until it was too late for me to be disciplined. That was one advantage of keeping a low profile, which was then my modus operandi.

At 16, I was asked by the school if I wanted to stay on. Many of my female friends opted to leave. My father, a very forward-thinking man, left the choice to me. “Boy or girl, you are all equal”, he said. For a working-class girl like me, that was the exception.

The school, of course, had me destined to be a secretary. There is nothing wrong with that, but there was no encouragement to go to university, except from my Russian teacher. I left at 16, but with highers in my back pocket. I looked for a job at what was then Ferranti, as I had higher physics, chemistry and maths. A woman in a white lab coat took me quietly to the side and advised me not to take the job offer because I would be stuck at her level, whereas men were promoted.

I then began as a clerkess in an insurance company, because I was desperate to have some money. After one year of that, I saw that able women were stuck at senior clerkess level, so that was it—I packed it in and went to university.

I am telling this story because the culture at the time, certainly for working-class girls, was to leave school at 16, get an office job, get engaged at 18, marry at 20 and have their first child at 22. Before the pill, there was no hanky-panky until they were married. A pregnant single girl at that time was considered a fallen woman, but it was different for boys and men, of course.

The irony is that, by national necessity, during the second world war, women were liberated into what were men-only jobs, but, as soon as the war ended, they were expected to return—and they did—to domestic-only roles.

We have come some way, but against that narrative, and not that far, really. Girls are still pigeonholed into certain trades and professions. There are not many female plumbers and electricians, but there are plenty of female teachers. It is tougher, as good though we are at multitasking, to juggle jobs and motherhood—it is no easy task. I insert the caveat that there are men, too, who have those dual roles.

Added to that, although there were always pressures on girls about their looks, they are exacerbated today by social media. Are you slim enough? Do you conform to the current model of good looks? Having to conform to fit in has always been the case, but it is much worse these days.

There has been a shift, but not as much as one would expect 80 years on. Marriage is not a necessity and the term “bidey-in” has been lost in the mists of time; it is about having partners. We have women as chief executives, we have had female Prime Ministers and a female First Minister and, often, general practitioners are women, although male nurses are more of a rarity. However, I do not have answers—only questions—as to why change is so slow. Why have we not moved on further in those 80 years?

I married at 25 and had my first child at 27. I had to give up my teaching post for six years to bring up my sons, as there was no such thing as maternity leave and no nursery or job security. We have some of that now—it is better, but it is not good enough.

As members will be aware, I have many hill farmers in my Midlothian, South Tweeddale and Lauderdale constituency. Like everyone else, they are concerned about the spread of the viruses.

I hear what the First Minister says about the measures that are in place to reduce their spread, because the chief veterinary officer for Scotland has said that it is inevitable that the viruses will come. I also hear what the First Minister said about Schmallenberg not being notifiable. What measures are in place in relation to imports from Europe, not just from within the UK, to reduce the spread of viruses such as Bluetooth? [Laughter.]

They did.

As we all know, across the public sector, a substantial proportion of the funding that has been allocated to the NHS and to education—indeed, to all public services—is for fixed costs. That includes the costs of staff, including wage increases, employer pension contributions and national insurance contributions, to which I will come shortly.

In addition, the funding includes, in the NHS, the costs of the Scottish Ambulance Service, of running hospitals, of medications and of payments to general practitioner practices—for example, for their contracts with NHS boards. There is not, therefore, much room for flexibility. There is room for reform and efficiency, and that is a task for the minister, Ivan McKee. I am thankful that he is not Elon Musk.

The budget has had to cover increased salaries across the public sector, with their ancillary employer costs, none of which we would begrudge nurses, the police and so on. However, the body blow of the increase in employer national insurance contributions has made a huge dent in the money that is available for those front-line services. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has estimated that the additional cost to councils alone will be £240 million. It is welcome that the SNP Government has committed to providing councils with an additional £144 million to support the cost of that hike. However, that does not cover the entire cost, and across Scotland, public services will face a bill of more than £700 million.

Despite that, the UK Government has suggested that it will not reimburse the cost in full, which could leave Scotland some £300 million short. The increase in provision to councils will help to cover the additional and recurring costs of pay rises for teachers, social workers, refuse collectors and so on. Those pay rises are deserved, and are mainly a consequence of years of Tory austerity, which climaxed in Trussonomics. Now, however, Labour’s national insurance increase will make sure that some of that money will simply go straight back to the Treasury.

That is not all. The impact across the economy of the national insurance increase will be damaging to all sectors. I know of businesses that are already not expanding, and of some that are looking to cut staff because they cannot meet the increased bill. There are serious consequences for the care sector, which is supportive of the real living wage but is finding that paying it, on top of increased national insurance contributions, is a measure too far.

There is also the impact on charities to consider. In Scotland 136,000 people are employed in the charitable sector. It is reckoned that the NI rise will cost charities £17 million a year; for example, it will cost the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals £400,000 a year.

Four Square (Scotland) is an Edinburgh charity that supports people who face homelessness. It employs about 120 people and has a turnover of less than £4 million. It delivers public services on behalf of the local authority, and has very limited options for finding money for the unexpected NI costs. It is considering whether it can afford a cost of living salary increase for staff in April 2025, or needs to cut posts. The strain on the voluntary sector will impact on public services, because there is bound to be displacement from voluntary services to the public sector and increasing demand.

To that national insurance pressure we can add the current 3 per cent rise in the cost of living, which is on an upward trajectory. That is now compounded by a 6.4 per cent increase in the energy cap, which will cost Scottish consumers £281 on average per year, with the average energy debt in Scotland—this figure is from Citizens Advice Scotland—being £2,500. In rural areas, it is worse, at £3,100.

That is the economic climate that has been set by UK plc, against which the Scottish Government’s budget endeavours to deliver, with increasing demand on our public services.

High on the list is poverty, particularly child poverty, which will increase for the reasons that I have outlined. Although they have already been mentioned, I mention again the highly popular baby box, which has more than 90 per cent uptake; universal free school meals from primary 1 to P5; the Scottish child payment, which is currently £26.70 for every child under 16 in a qualifying household; removal of the two-child benefit cap; the return of the universal winter fuel payment; the introduction of breakfast clubs; free travel for pensioners, for many disabled people and for under-22s; and no tuition fees. That is a great list, and those things are what our taxes pay for.

Finally, as we all know, not everything can be achieved, so setting a budget is about choices, and this Government has made good choices. What a contrast that is with UK Labour, which is undermining our farming community with an inheritance tax, leaving pensioners out in the cold, removing the universal winter fuel payment, defending the two-child benefit cap and hiking employer national insurance contributions.

What a difference there is in our budget priorities, and what a difference there would be if we had full control over our economy with independence.

I anticipated your request to be brief, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government what research it has recently completed into the efficacy and standardisation of the presumption of inclusion in mainstream education. (S6O-04337)