Seòmar agus comataidhean

The criticism focused on the weakness of detail, policy timescales and significant contradictions in Covid recovery policy, which is one of the reasons why our amendment focuses on those aspects.

The Deputy First Minister, Murdo Fraser and Daniel Johnson all said in their opening remarks that the key priority has to be minimising the Covid threat and addressing the many other health issues arising from it, and that is right. However, I am just as certain that the second priority for the public and the Scottish business sector is to ensure that we have a strong economic recovery—one that is sustainable in the future, not just in the short term, and we have to be mindful that predictions are showing that growth rates may well slow in that future.

The good news, as we saw in yesterday’s budget, is that the current economic forecasts on growth are much better than was previously thought might be the case. However, as the chancellor said yesterday, that needs to be set against the inflationary pressures, the rise in the cost of living and the rise in national insurance charges, even if it is generally accepted that those have a part to play in addressing the huge issue in health and social care spending.

Those inflationary pressures are strong—we only have to look at the petrol prices over the past 10 days to realise how strong they are—so growth is critical not just for jobs, investment and tax revenues, but to encourage greater economic optimism. One thing that would immediately provide some optimism is for the Scottish Government to continue to provide business rates relief for the retail and hospitality sectors for longer. The Scottish Government was very generous in the past financial year and it would be good to hear from the Deputy First Minister what it intends to do now.

The overwhelming message from the retail and hospitality sectors, and from some of the witnesses who have appeared at the Finance and Public Administration Committee, is that business continues to need considerable support. The Scottish Retail Consortium tells us that footfall is still 20 per cent below the pre-pandemic level and that serious questions remain about the viability of some businesses. Many of them have incurred substantial debt burdens and this is a difficult time for them, wondering whether they will continue in the future. That is why the Scottish Government’s business rates waiver was very welcome. I urge the Government to concentrate on that for the immediate future, because business is crying out for it.

We have also been told by several key stakeholders that much more has to be done to stimulate local economies. That, of course, is the main reason why we have the levelling-up programme, and it was good to see more detail about that yesterday. It was also good to hear Kate Forbes welcoming that funding on the radio this morning.

This Parliament may be united in its support for schemes such as the Scotland Loves Local fund, but if our local economies are to be truly successful, a lot more must be done. The Conservatives persistently argue for much more to be done to encourage our schools, hospitals and other public bodies to procure more local produce. Yesterday, the higher education rankings came out. Those were interesting not only for the usual reasons, but because they looked at the wellbeing aspects of our universities. It was good to see two Scottish universities high up the table in relation to the measure on improving local procurement. There are lots of lessons to be learned from them.

One of the biggest issues is labour. Unemployment has not risen in the way that it was expected to and job vacancies continue to be very high. That tells us that there is a mismatch of skills and problems with flexibility in the labour force. I was interested to hear the Deputy First Minister’s comments about education and skills. He is absolutely right in that regard, but we need to look in much greater detail at what to do, and at the timeframe in which to do that work, because the issue is crucial.

Finally, the provision of greater “certainty and stability”—I use those words because they are the words that Kate Forbes used—is critical when it comes to taking a much more coherent and holistic approach to economic policy making and ensuring that Scotland remains fully competitive with other economies. That is most especially the case in relation to England’s economy, given just how important it is, as we know from last week’s export statistics.

The Scottish Government, as it knows, was recently criticised for not listening sufficiently well to business, whether on the broad scope of economic policy, difficulties with vaccination passports or the ability to access available support.

What is the Scottish Government’s reaction to yesterday’s call from the Scottish Tourism Alliance to extend the period of business rates relief in retail, hospitality and leisure on a similar basis to that announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday?

I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s response to the new year’s day trading consultation. The minister knows full well that the retail sector’s overwhelming view was that such a statutory closure of shops on new year’s day would be a retrograde step at the very time when we are doing everything possible to get the sector back on its feet. Such a closure would also have sent a contradictory message to tourists, who we encourage to come to Scotland in the festive period.

I have three specific questions that have arisen from evidence that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has taken recently. What is the Scottish Government doing to assess the changes in consumer purchasing behaviour—not just the technological changes that the minister mentioned—as a result of the Covid situation? Those changes have huge implications for the retail sector and it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to assess them.

The minister was right to mention Scotland Loves Local, which has strong cross-party support. Will he spell out what action the Scottish Government is taking, in line with local authorities, to ensure that our schools, hospitals and other public bodies do an awful lot more to enhance public procurement of local produce? The record on that is not particularly good.

What measures is the Scottish Government taking, in line with the banking sector, to address the high level of debt in some smaller firms in the retail sector as a result of Covid?

The First Minister says on page 5 of her statement that it is for practical reasons that the Scottish Government has decided to make the change from a day 2 PCR test to a lateral flow test, yet in previous statements she has said that it is for medical reasons. If it is for practical reasons, is it not the case that that change could have been made at the same time as it was made for England and Wales, which would have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble?

Everybody in the chamber, whatever our political views—and, my goodness, they are diverse—and however we all voted on Brexit, fully acknowledges that we are currently facing one of the most difficult periods that there have ever been in British and Scottish politics.

It is true that Brexit has been difficult and, for some people, it has been deeply troubling. It has been emotive and it has also been divisive in exactly the same way that the independence referendum was in 2014. However, as we try very hard to take an objective stance in the current debate, we should remember two things, the first of which relates to Daniel Johnson’s point that we have a democratic duty as politicians to deliver what people voted for, even if we do not personally like the result of that vote.

Secondly, as Maurice Golden said, voters want us to focus on the outcome that works for them. I believe that they want Governments to co-operate, most especially during the dark days of the Covid pandemic, and to listen carefully to the sectors, most especially in business and industry, on which our economic recovery depends.

We should also acknowledge that in 2014, when the people of Scotland made a decision to stay in the United Kingdom, and in 2016, when the people of the UK made a decision to withdraw from the EU, they made those decisions after the terms of the plebiscite had been agreed. That agreement embodies an acceptance by both sides that the result of the referendum would be respected.

I have said many times in this chamber during Brexit debates that I was very disappointed with the result of the EU referendum. I will be the first to acknowledge this afternoon that Brexit has exacerbated some of the issues that Scotland faces. However, it is neither fair nor accurate to say that Brexit is the sole cause of all the pressures in the economy. Indeed, it is completely disingenuous to suggest that.

Willie Rennie and Richard Leonard made very balanced speeches. I do not agree with some of what they said, but they both argued that this is not a simple situation. Brexit has undoubtedly had implications for visas and therefore for some movement of labour, but there are several other reasons for the current situation. Conservative members have cited comments from key figures in the haulage industry who have made it very clear that the industry has been suffering from labour shortages for some time, partly because of the age profiles of their drivers and partly because the Covid situation has meant that, understandably, fewer drivers have been able to, or wanted to, work away from home. The pandemic has also obviously had an impact on the ability of those who train and test drivers to provide the necessary certificates and licences.

Those issues are by no means unique to the UK. The driver shortfall across Europe is 400,000-plus, and that includes countries that remain in the EU. Poland and Germany are among those that are suffering many of the same workforce and recruitment difficulties.

Liam Kerr pointed out the hypocrisy of the motion in its excoriating attack on the UK Government. That Government has secured 70 different trade deals, and the SNP did not vote for even one of them, including the deal that was finally agreed with the EU to avoid a no-deal situation. The SNP continues to forget conveniently that that final deal, with all its imperfections, had the support of key players in Scotland, including Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the heads of the UK’s four national farmers unions, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Scotch Whisky Association and major companies such as Diageo. Those organisations are not arguing about abstract and finer points of the constitution; they are looking at what is best for their sectors in terms of stability in the future and the securing of jobs and investment, especially at a time when our economy is so fragile. [Interruption.] No, I will not take an intervention, if you do not mind. Like them, the Scottish Conservatives believe that, after all the tortuous negotiations, the Brexit deal was the only viable means of an orderly exit from the EU.

However, the SNP persists in claiming that the current situation is far better for fostering a debate about another independence referendum, even though we have heard several times today about the warnings that its own advisers are giving. Some of those warnings cause little surprise, given the divisions that have been created in the difficult period of the upsetting of 50 years of UK economic integration with the EU.

What would it be like if we separated from the United Kingdom? Not one single piece of respected, independent economic analysis have I seen that provides any evidence whatsoever that breaking up the union would provide Scotland with the same economic benefits and stability that it has now. There would not be the sums that point to fiscal stability, nor the drivers of economic growth—particularly those relating to economies of scale—that the UK brings. There would not be the same opportunities for investment, nor the safeguards that the union provides via UK spending—and, my goodness, how much we have needed that guarantee in the current pandemic.

I say again: you cannot keep demanding reruns of referenda just because you do not like the outcome. I happen to think that that view is shared by a large proportion of the electorate. They are fed up with the constant tone of grievance that, sadly, has become the defining element of the SNP.

I begin by acknowledging the very difficult job that confronts the Government on the issue—first, because it is often necessary to take quick decisions in response to a virus that shows absolutely no concern whatsoever for the pressures that are placed on the economy or on society, and secondly, because it is not easy to balance health concerns against the needs of the economy and society’s wellbeing. However, what is absolutely crucial, whatever is decided, is the need to earn public trust, and therefore consent, when it comes to ensuring that the public will adhere to the necessary guidelines with a responsible approach.

I will reflect on that, given what the business community has been saying. The First Minister reminded us yesterday that we should all be united in our aim to tackle this awful disease and to minimise the risks that are associated with it by controlling situations in which there is likely to be a risk of increased transmission.

Businesses agree with that, but they make the point—quite rightly—that the precise aims of measures must be clear. In the case of vaccination passports, there would have to be supportive and compelling evidence that their introduction would, first, be clearly understood; that it would, secondly, be accepted by the public as the right measure; and that it would, thirdly, be backed up with the necessary resources to secure effective implementation.

Those are perfectly fair questions to ask—most especially of an SNP Government that yesterday shifted the goalposts again. The First Minister claimed that that shift, to allow for a grace period up to 18 October, was made precisely because the Scottish Government had been listening to business. However, the fact of the matter is that the business community is saying exactly the same now as it has been saying for weeks, which is that vaccination passports are not the answer.

Scrutiny of proposals is critical not only in order to foster public awareness and understanding but—which is most important—to produce a cogent case with evidence for how an initiative will work.

If Mr Mason does not mind, I will not give way on this occasion.

On vaccination passports, however, which we debated earlier in the month, there was no time whatsoever for adequate scrutiny—not least because the Scottish Government admitted that it was still in the process of collecting the necessary evidence, which was a concern that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee raised. In that debate, on 9 September, my colleague Murdo Fraser rightly set out that, although some parties in the chamber have—as Mr Cole-Hamilton just said—a long-standing opposition to any form of ID policy, the Scottish Conservatives could, on a pragmatic basis, say that there might be a case for vaccination passports on a very short-term basis, but only if there was proven evidence that they could be beneficial in the war against Covid. That case has never been made, however, and worse still is that it has never been scrutinised.

That is why the business community has been so quick to express its concerns about several key issues, including how QR codes would be read, policing costs, whether vaccination passports work better than negative lateral flow tests, for how long vaccination passports would be necessary and whether they would perpetuate inequalities.

There is a legal challenge because of all the unanswered questions. Two members have outlined what the hospitality and night-time industries are saying about that. It is absolutely imperative that we listen, because there are serious concerns—not just about workability, but about the potential legal challenge. Of course, yesterday, the First Minister had finally to acknowledge the deep-seated concerns, but all she has done is muddy the waters even more.

The real problems are the policy inconsistencies, the legal issues and the lack of on-going evidence, so we call on the SNP-Green coalition—half of which is fundamentally opposed to vaccination passports—to halt the programme.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it is having with local authorities regarding spectators returning to watch school sports events. (S6O-00194)

I listened carefully to the reply to Jeremy Balfour. The cabinet secretary will know that I am not the only member who has received, throughout the summer, a considerable number of emails from parents right across Scotland asking what the logic is behind the decision. They want to know why they cannot go to watch their youngsters taking part in school matches, when many thousands can attend football matches and last week’s TRNSMT concert. Is there any logic in that decision?