Hansard

I support the motion in Elaine Smith’s name and the STUC’s there is a better way campaign. Those who support the notion that there is a better way should unite behind the campaign. There might be criticism, as the forces against the campaign are strong, so there is a need for unity among all parties and members who really and truly believe that there is a case to be argued here.

There is an economic crisis, with high and rising unemployment and stagnant growth but, as Elaine Smith says, it is not a crisis of the public finances. The recession that we are now in was not caused by control of public spending. History does not support the coalition’s assertion that cuts would be good for growth and jobs. Many economic experts, to whom Jamie Hepburn referred, say this. A budget that is aimed to please the markets is folly and will not necessarily please the markets at all. Plenty of commentators who know about economics say that deep, premature and unnecessary cuts will lead to persistently high unemployment. The strategy is seriously misguided for the whole of the country.

Youth unemployment is now up by nearly 80 per cent since the beginning of the recession, yet one of the first acts of the coalition was to cut the future jobs fund, denying employment to thousands of Scots. How do we get our heads round that? It was a staggering decision.

As other members have said, cuts in services will impact hardest on the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. Prolonged unemployment will add to the thousands of people who are already among our most vulnerable and will cause deep-rooted social problems in our society, the likes of which we saw in the 1980s. It will take decades to recover.

The emergency budget of 22 June last year was a bleak day for ordinary people, with massive cuts over such a short time. The pace of fiscal consolidation is positively reckless. The attempt to eliminate the deficit over a single parliament is the direct cause of the excessive cuts. No wonder people are beginning to question the motives of the coalition Government, suggesting that it perhaps has an ideological commitment, rather than a commitment to putting the country’s finances in order.

The pain that is being inflicted by the decisions goes much wider than the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. The increase in VAT to 20 per cent affects the cost of living for ordinary families. We discussed petrol prices in the Parliament yesterday, and I am pleased to know that we united behind a position. The Government should recognise the impact of higher prices on ordinary families. Carers need their cars to look after members of their families. People who do not have access to public transport will struggle to get to work. People on moderate incomes are being severely affected by the budget.

Hugh Henry makes some key points, which we should be talking about beyond today. The proposals to remove employment protection come at a time when people feel that security of employment has never been more under attack—and the trade unions are needed more than ever.

It is shocking that, in a period of austerity, there seems to be some support among employers for reducing employment rights. I have spoken to some well-known employers who have said that they would not have made such hard cuts in employment if there had been better statutory terms for redundancy. I am in favour of improving employment rights in a period of austerity to give ordinary people better protection in their employment.

The behaviour of our banks, which we have probably not debated enough in the Parliament, is appalling. They have not put products on the market that are suitable for first-time buyers, and small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, are still not getting the lending that they deserve.

I support the living wage, but not only for the public sector—