Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for that response and her acknowledgement of CNER’s published response to the STPR2 process.

The minister will be aware of the importance of connecting the towns of Peterhead and Fraserburgh to the rail network, if they are to benefit from and be a part of creating the new economy that the north-east so desperately needs. Can the minister give assurances that the Campaign for North East Rail’s response will be included, and that the campaign group will be incorporated in design decisions for the next promised feasibility study, so that local knowledge and expertise can be taken on board to ensure that the next study will take into account the needs of north-east communities?

The minister will be aware of the deep dissatisfaction among staff and students in higher education. In addition to the UCU reballoting, the University of Dundee’s Unison workers are out on strike, as we speak.

Does the minister agree that university principals need to account for the almost £80 million of Scottish public money that they are planning to use to meet a deficit in the USS, even though the USS has stated that the deficit no longer exists because it was a result of Covid? Could Scottish ministers offer to work with Scottish principals to make the case that a revaluation of the scheme and a reduction in the £80 million spending is necessary?

To ask the Scottish Government what communication it has had with Scottish universities and the University and College Union Scotland about the four fights and Universities Superannuation Scheme pensions disputes, in light of the recent reballoting for industrial action by staff. (S6O-00975)

I want to bring in Roddy MacDonald, because I am particularly interested in his members and the communities that he represents. We know some of the things that we need to do, but what do we need to stop doing? What do we need to change because we are not getting it right, in terms of alignment, policy coherence and things like that?

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us.

I want to follow on from what Anthea Coulter and Danny Cepok have talked about. We have heard about the need for alignment, policy coherence and all the different strategies—Gemma Cruickshank mentioned the retail strategy—coming together and not replicating work. I ask Danny Cepok this question first. What do the different levels of Government—the Scottish Government, the UK Government and local authorities—and other public bodies need to do better to co-ordinate policies and ensure that there is no repetition and that there are no conflicts and big gaps? That is important.

Good morning. First, I must apologise—my internet is a little bit dodgy, so you have audio only from me. Maybe that is a good thing for you all. In any case, thank you for being here today.

My line of questioning follows on from the discussion that Colin Smyth instigated. Phil Prentice spoke very clearly about alignment, which was one of the key things that Leigh Sparks mentioned previously. The challenge that we face is silo working, which is one of my bugbears, too, and it is siloed not only within single layers of government but within different layers of government and other public agencies or bodies.

If I can, I will bring David Grove into this discussion. From your point of view as a town centre development person in Fife, what are the key things that we should be doing differently and better to ensure that the UK and Scottish Governments, as well as local authorities and the other public bodies and agencies, better co-ordinate things among themselves, so that we are not reinventing the wheel in lots of different places and are not producing conflicts between different things? As Phil Prentice has said, this is about bringing planning together and focusing on the climate emergency as our biggest societal goal. In short, from your point of view, what are the things that we need to be doing differently or better?

That is helpful.

I will bring in Anthea Coulter on the same question. What do we need to do differently or better, or not do, to break down silos and achieve policy coherence, alignment and co-ordination so that we get holistic and joined-up working?

That is really helpful.

That was really helpful—thanks very much. I will leave it there, convener.

This is an emergency, but it is not an accident. The cost of living crisis is not unpredictable or unplanned; it is not an act of God or nature that has fallen from the sky equally upon us all. It is not the result of Covid or the invasion of Ukraine, although both those tragedies have exacerbated its effects and will continue to do so. No, it is the result of deliberate policies of the UK Government that are specifically, if not explicitly, designed to widen the gulf between the poor and the rich; between those who suffer from the misery of cold, damp and hunger, and those who profit by it.

We are, to our great sadness and collective shame, acutely familiar with the concept of the hostile environment—that malevolent invention of Theresa May’s Home Office. Those toxic seeds are now bearing their poisoned fruit in the UK Nationality and Borders Bill and in the proposal to outsource our obligations to the most vulnerable of refugees to Rwanda, which is itself a victim of European colonialism.

More hostile environments are lovingly nurtured by the right, egged on by those who should know better. Hostile environments surround the rule of law, the concept of public integrity and the wellbeing of climate-scarred generations. Let us not forget that David Cameron’s “cut the green crap” approach has added £2.5 billion to UK energy bills, or that 90 per cent of energy cost rises in the past year has been down to gas price volatility. Had we moved away from fossil fuels years ago, as we could have, we might not be in this predicament.

Most acute of all, a relentlessly hostile environment has been deliberately constructed around the poor. That environment comprises deliberately cruel and humiliating policies such as the bedroom tax, the benefits cap and the rape clause, and it has been built by their equally cruel and humiliating implementation. It is decorated by the dehumanising and brutal language with which they are described by politicians and the media. It is vital that we acknowledge that reality and understand who is bearing all the burden and who is reaping the rewards. Vague language about “every household” does not do that; it only obscures the shocking scale of this scandal.

It is vital that we respond to the full extent of our capability with integrity, solidarity, effectiveness and justice. There are three ways we can do that. First, we can resist, on behalf of the Scottish people, the most egregious effects of Westminster cruelty. Our Scottish Green manifesto commitment to mitigate the benefit cap was an example of such resistance, and I am pleased that, through constructive dialogue and co-operative working, it was incorporated into the tackling child poverty delivery plan to support the families who are most crushed by the cap.

Secondly, we can use our devolved powers to address the practical needs of the most vulnerable. The doubling of the Scottish child payment is part of that work, as is the uprating of benefits that Social Security Scotland has delivered and the very welcome announcement that rail fares are being cut by half next month. New Zealand—another small country making its mark on the world—is leading by example on that.

Thirdly, we can work to change the narrative: the worse-than-Victorian fiction of wealth creators and the undeserving poor. We can do better than approaching a workhouse supervisor with our empty bowl, begging, “Please sir, can I have some more?” We can point out, and go on pointing out, that the workhouse is built on common land, and that what is so grudgingly dropped from the gruel pot was stolen in the first place.

There is a consensus among many of the parties in the chamber that the UK Government should impose a windfall tax on companies that have profited obscenely from our overlapping crises. That is entirely appropriate. However, their windfalls are not the fortunate harvests of hard-working orchard keepers—they have been gained by enclosure, and kept through subsidy, secretive lobbying and systems that stockpile privilege and punish the poor. Until that reality is acknowledged and the story changes, we will still be firefighting this emergency that is no accident.