Chamber and committees

I know that we have heard a lot, so I am sorry for coming back in. I appreciate that this is potentially a big topic, but I would like the headlines, maybe from Angela O’Hagan.

We are talking about a multiyear resource spending review, and many of us on the committee are interested in how we engage and ensure that we get the right participation from people. Do you have any top tips or key recommendations for us to think about as we look at how to make our budget processes more participative? How can we hear from the voices that we have not been hearing from, in a way that still allows us to analyse data and gather expert evidence? Specifically, I am thinking about that in the context of the multiyear spending review.

Yes, there is a gap between the equality statement and the annex and then the level 4 data—there is something missing in between.

I will bring in Angela O’Hagan. Angela, you talked about the need for collective action. I am interested in how we break down some of the departmental silos. We have got to this point because departmental budgets have, for understandable reasons, been fiercely protected, and the connections or overlaps between them have not necessarily been seen clearly. Will you pick up on that point as it relates to the broader question?

Good morning, and thank you all for your opening remarks. It is good to hear recognition that this is, in part, a process, and that, while there have been improvements, there is still considerable work to do, especially in certain areas.

I will explore some of those areas in my initial question. I was struck by what was said about the adding-up issue and it not being understood exactly how allocations in the equalities and human rights base connect with one another or add up. I am interested in how that relates to our structural equality analysis and our understanding of where the issues are. Maybe that goes back to the cart-before-horse issue that Emma Congreve talked about.

Emma, could you start by saying a little more about where we should currently be looking for that structural equality analysis, and what we need to do to build on that for future budgets, given that we know that this budget probably does not meet all our ambitions? I am interested in your thoughts on looking at that through the lens of intersectional gender budgeting in particular.

That is really helpful. I see from the chat that Chris Birt wants to come in as well, so I will hand over to him, and then I will ask Angela O’Hagan to come in.

Thank you. That is very helpful.

Thank you for that, Chris.

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is planning to introduce to protect communities and ecosystems from land speculation associated with carbon offsetting. (S6O-00651)

That is no problem, Presiding Officer. Thank you.

I thank Bill Kidd for lodging his motion and for securing the debate. I share his enthusiasm for the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and was delighted when it came into force a year ago. I also appreciate the detail that Bill and others have given about the prohibition and non-proliferation treaties.

It is absolutely right that we devote parliamentary time to this important issue. We have a role to play in educating ourselves and others. I thank Bill Kidd for his leadership in that and for acknowledging the work of Janet Fenton, who has been inspirational for so many in Scotland and further afield.

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, although I wish that it were not necessary. Nuclear weapons are a stain on us all. They are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They are unlike any other military force: they cause devastation in the moment and for generations, they are uniquely persistent and they spread genetically damaging radioactive fallout. They are weapons of indiscriminate intergenerational mass murder.

As if all that is not bad enough, use of nuclear weapons would destroy all forms of life, and their development disrupts life-support systems, including our climate. Use of less than 1 per cent of the nuclear weapons that currently exist in the world could disrupt the global climate and threaten as many as 2 billion people with starvation in a nuclear famine. The thousands of nuclear weapons that are possessed by just the United States and Russia would destroy the world. The expression “nuclear winter” does not even come close to describing what would be experienced.

That those weapons exist and that Governments play politics with them should shame us all. Nuclear weapons epitomise the worst of politics. To use the threat of world-obliterating force means that politics has failed. It teaches us that violence is a legitimate answer to difficult questions and indicates that Governments care more about their egos and about making shows of strength and power than they do about life.

As a South African citizen, I am pleased that South Africa made the conscious decision to disarm. The South African Government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons and was the first state in the world voluntarily to give up all the nuclear arms that it had developed. The country has been a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since 1991 and ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons three years ago, thereby becoming the first country to have had nuclear weapons, disarmed them and gone on to sign those treaties.

For the many economic, humanitarian and moral reasons that have already been outlined by others, I wish that the country that I have chosen as my home could sign the prohibition treaty today. Unfortunately, it looks as if we must wait until Scotland is an independent country before we can do that. We must make sure that we do that when we can.

I agree with Jamie Greene and others. I do not just want nuclear weapons out of Scotland; I want them out of every country. We can, and should, use all our resources for good.

We must also use the powers that we have now, and powers that I hope we will have in the future, to restrict and stop the proliferation not only of nuclear machinery, but of the broader military-industrial complex. The two are related. As a priority, we should stop the preferential Government support for Raytheon, BAE Systems and other dealers in death. We can see in Yemen the damage that Britain, including Scotland, continues to do in the world through support for arms manufacture. We need to use all peaceful avenues that are open to us to prevent the UK Government from renewing its huge financial support for Trident and other nuclear weapons.

We can and must be a force for good in the world. We can be peace builders, we can be peacemakers, and we can say that we will never again use indiscriminate weapons of mass murder.

To ask the First Minister what impact the United Kingdom Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill will have on devolved functions. (S6F-00675)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of her statement and for outlining what has happened in relation to the various potential buyers over the past couple of years.

We all know that air travel is a small but significant contributor to climate emissions, with emissions rising steadily prior to the pandemic. Will the cabinet secretary include in discussions with future potential buyers of Prestwick airport additional eligibility criteria that speak to being a climate-resilient airport, supporting and developing innovative low-carbon air travel technologies and the associated jobs, and reducing—not just offsetting—emissions that result from flights coming through the airport?