Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03217)
Given that today is world cancer day, I take this opportunity to thank all our health and social care staff and those in the third sector who work tirelessly to deliver our cancer services. I know that every member in the chamber is acutely aware of the devastating impact that cancer has on people here at home and around the world, and it is therefore important for all of us to mark world cancer day 2016.
Later today, I have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.
I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks in their entirety.
Last night, the First Minister voted against Labour's plans to use the powers of this Parliament to stop cuts to education and vital local public services. The Scottish National Party and the Tories stood shoulder to shoulder to impose hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts on schools and communities. That goes against everything that the First Minister has ever told us that she stands for. Last year she said:
“we will use the powers we have in the Scottish Parliament to pursue a different approach”,
and she promised to halt the deeply misguided march to further austerity. Yesterday, she had the chance to stop school budgets being slashed and thousands of people losing their jobs. Why did she not take it?
Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]
Order.
In this chamber, we have a Labour Party that wants to increase taxes for low-income and middle-income earners, and a Tory party that wants to cut taxes for high earners. They are both wrong, and they are as bad as each other.
Last night, I and my colleagues voted against a proposal that would have seen every single person in Scotland who earns above £11,000 a year paying more tax. That is a fact, whether Labour likes it or not. One could argue that, in doing so, I was only following the advice of Kezia Dugdale herself. She stood up at her party conference last October and said that
“A fairer Scotland isn’t one where everyone pays more tax”
and that we must
“stop ... tax rises on working families.”
I will concentrate on protecting—[Interruption.]
Order.
I will concentrate on protecting our vital public services and delivering pay rises for people across Scotland. I will leave the Labour Party to defend why somebody on £11,000 a year should be paying more tax.
Of course, the First Minister did not stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in the chamber only yesterday; she was in the newspapers this week using phrases such as “tax grab” and “punitive tax rises”. What about punitive service cuts and punitive job losses? She imposed £500 million-worth of cuts on local communities across Scotland yesterday.
It is always the same with the SNP: “It can’t be done,” and “We don’t have the power”—the same pathetic excuses that we heard when the party was pressed on tax credits.
The reality is this: it can be done, and we have the power. The budget process has a long way to go. We can still stop these SNP cuts to schools. At the stroke of a pen, the First Minister could stop hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of cuts and thousands of job losses. She says that education has been protected, but it was revealed this week that spending on children in our primary schools has been cut by £561 per child since she was re-elected. That is before the latest round of cuts. If she will not stop cuts to local school budgets, how on earth can she claim that education is her priority?
In point of fact, total revenue spending on schools has risen under this SNP Government by at least £208 million, or 4.5 per cent. That is the reality.
However, let us just focus on what Kezia Dugdale is proposing. Local authorities in the next financial year are facing a reduction of £350 million, which is offset by an investment in social care of £250 million. Instead of saying to local authorities, “Let us work together to find a 1 per cent reduction in a budget of £15 billion,” Labour wants to increase tax for every single person in Scotland who is earning more than £11,000. That is the reality.
Let me spell out to Kezia Dugdale what that means to a public sector worker. Someone who is working in our national health service right now—[Interruption.]
Order.
—and earning £21,000 is looking forward to a £100 increase in the minimum pay rise as a result of John Swinney’s decision. That minimum pay rise will go up from £300 to £400 in April. Every single penny of that extra £100 will be taken away by Labour’s proposals. As Gordon Brown once said, there is hardly a nurse, teacher, policeman, or council worker who will not be hit hard by an increase in the basic rate of tax.
Therefore, we will continue to take the decisions—even though the Tories are cutting our budget—to protect our NHS, to invest in social care, to pay a living wage to every social care worker in our country, to maintain teachers in our schools, to invest in attainment and to protect household budgets. I will leave Labour to defend why low-paid workers in this country should pay Labour’s extra tax.
Every one of the arguments that the First Minister just deployed was used by David Cameron at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—every one of them. It is true.
The First Minister stands there and says that Labour’s plans are unfair and workable. She should explain why union after union has come out over the past few days to say that they are fair, and council leader after council leader has come out to say that they are workable.
In the limelight of the general election, Nicola Sturgeon sent a reassuring message to voters in England. She said:
“We will demand an alternative to slash-and-burn austerity.”
Let us take a look at what one of her old advisers had to say about that today. Alex Bell said—[Interruption.] He is one of their own!
Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.
Alex Bell said:
“If you spend your life shouting ‘fire, fire’, at some point you have to use the extinguisher. If not, then you just look like an arsonist.”
The First Minister, who built her celebrity on being the anti-austerity alternative, is now leading the attack on the only alternative to austerity. [Interruption.] Faced with the choice between using the powers of this Parliament and hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of cuts, why did the First Minister choose austerity?
Order.
Do you know what? Tax rises on the lowest paid in our society is not—[Interruption.]
Sit down. There is far too much shouting across the chamber. Please let us hear the First Minister, and please let us hear Ms Dugdale.
Tax rises on the lowest paid in our society is not standing up to Tory austerity; it is transferring the burden of Tory austerity on to the shoulders of those who can least afford it.
Kezia Dugdale wants to trade advisers. Well, let me give her one. I was struck by the comment earlier this week by an economist who was commenting directly on Kezia Dugdale’s proposals and who said that she disagreed with them and that tax rises are just “another name for austerity.” That economist was Ann Pettifor. She is a member of Jeremy Corbyn’s economic advisory committee, and that is her view. Labour is not proposing an alternative to austerity but transferring the burden and proposing austerity by another name. We would not—[Interruption.]
Order.
The reality—the reality that Scottish Labour cannot and never will escape—is that we would not be facing Tory cuts right now if it had not campaigned with the Tories to keep us locked into Tory cuts.
I see Iain Gray sitting next to Kezia Dugdale. [Interruption.] Let me remind the people of Scotland what Iain Gray told them before the referendum: if Scotland was independent, John Swinney would have to increase taxes. Thanks to Labour, the Tories are in charge of our budget and now we have Labour proposing an increase in taxes. They are an utter disgrace. [Interruption.]
Kezia Dugdale. [Interruption.] Ms Dugdale. [Interruption.] Let us hear Ms Dugdale.
Experts from the University of Stirling, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the House of Commons library and the Scottish Parliament information centre all say that Labour’s policy is fair because the poorest are protected and the richest pay the most. That matters, because Nicola Sturgeon has built her career on telling us that more powers would mean fewer cuts but she refuses to use the powers that she has when it really matters. She has staked her reputation on improving education but she cuts school budgets rather than using those powers. She has sold herself as the radical alternative to Tory austerity but yesterday she sold out the people who needed her the most.
This is the week that Nicola Sturgeon was found out. People throughout Scotland are left asking why, with all her power, the First Minister could not just do the right thing.
There is a difference here. It is clear that Kezia Dugdale thinks that making somebody who earns £11,000 a year pay the price of Tory austerity is the right thing to do. I do not; I think that giving those people a pay rise and getting them on to the living wage is the right thing to do.
Kezia Dugdale says that her proposals are fair. She cannot explain the detail of her proposals, as we saw very clearly from Jackie Baillie. Apparently, the rebate, which is a total con, has all been worked out. I do not even know whether Kezia Dugdale knows how much it costs to administer housing and council tax benefit schemes every year. [Interruption.]
Order.
A scheme that caters for half a million applicants costs £41 million, yet Labour expects us to believe that a scheme that would have to deal with a million applicants will cost £1 million. It is absolute incompetence.
Kezia Dugdale says that her proposals are fair. Under Labour’s proposals, the amount of tax that I pay would go up by 2.7 per cent, but the amount of tax that a nurse, a teacher or a care worker would pay would go up by 5 per cent. That is not fair in the slightest. [Interruption.]
Order.
I leave Labour to argue for tax rises for the low paid to compensate for the Tory cuts that they kept us locked into. I will continue to argue for fairness, pay rises and the protection of our public services. That is the difference between us.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-03215)
I have no plans to do that at present.
Let us try this from a different angle. The new powers that are coming to the Parliament have already changed the debate in Scotland. The Labour Party is going into the election threatening to put up taxes for every worker in Scotland. The Lib Dems are also going into the election threatening to put up taxes for every worker in Scotland.
The Scottish Conservatives want to protect people’s pay cheques and believe that workers in Scotland should not have to pay more than those in the rest of the United Kingdom pay. We will also try to lower taxes when it is affordable to do so.
The Scottish National Party alone keeps us guessing. There are no tax rises this year, but who knows after that? I ask the First Minister to give me a straight answer. Does she believe that Scottish workers, no matter which end of the pay scale they are at, should never have to pay more tax than workers in the rest of the UK pay?
For completeness, I say that the Tories are also going into the election arguing for more tax on low-paid people, because they would bring back prescription charges and make people pay for education. Let us not pretend that the Tories are not proposing some pretty hefty tax rises as well. The difference is that they want to cut taxes for people who are at the highest end of the income scale.
I will continue to argue for fairness. In advance of the election, we will put forward the sensible policies that protect our public services and household incomes. We reject the approach of Labour and we reject the approach of the Tories. Do you know what? Probably, Scotland will too.
It looks as if I am going to have to wait a wee while for a proper answer.
A lot of the decisions that we are talking about hang on the successful conclusion of the talks between our two Governments on a sustainable fiscal framework. I believe that there is an agreement to reach and that it is in the interests of both Governments and, more important, of the people of Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that no arbitrary deadline should be set to cut the discussions short. People need to know ahead of the election what they are voting for. The talks should continue beyond the artificial February deadline if extra time is needed to hammer out the deal. Does the First Minister agree?
It is up to this Parliament to decide the amount of time that it needs to scrutinise any deal that is agreed. I want a deal to be agreed as quickly as possible and we will do everything that we can to reach that deal. I want the new powers, however limited they might be.
Presiding Officer, let me tell you the difference between me and Ruth Davidson. I will stand up for Scotland at the talks. I will not accept a deal that gives Scotland more powers only at a big cost to our budget. If Ruth Davidson wants a deal as well, I suggest that she gets on the phone to her colleagues today and tells them to stop arguing for a deal that would strip billions of pounds out of Scotland’s budget.
We have a constituency question from Murdo Fraser.
The First Minister should be aware of the anger and dismay that Fife businesses have felt this morning on being told that it will now be mid-March before the Forth road bridge fully reopens to heavy goods vehicles. She will recall that we were promised that the bridge would reopen fully first in early January and then in mid-February, and now we are being told that it will be in mid-March. What confidence can we have that the new date will be met, given that the two previous deadlines were not met? Given the on-going losses that Fife businesses are suffering, what further assistance can the Scottish Government offer them?
As Murdo Fraser and everybody else knows, the bridge is open—and has been open since before Christmas—to 90 per cent of all traffic. What was announced this morning is a partial reopening of the bridge to HGVs so that overnight, weather permitting, a limited number of HGVs—but nevertheless some—will be allowed to cross.
There has been a delay to the full completion of the works. That is partly down to something that I hope everybody recognises—the weather conditions, and particularly the high winds that we have been facing—but it is also down to the need to do further strengthening to particular parts of the bridge, which is why the mid-March date has been given by the Minister for Transport and Islands today. Some contingency is built into that to take account of possible bad weather conditions over the next few weeks.
We are working hard to get the bridge fully reopened to all HGVs and to facilitate as much traffic across the bridge as we can. We will continue, as we have been doing, to work with the haulage industry to support it as much as we can during this period.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03212)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
I start on a rare point of consensus. The First Minister is right about the Conservatives, who have £140 million-worth of stealth taxes planned, as the hole in their budget plans reveals.
The First Minister has choices, yet the SNP is imposing cuts on schools and council services. She has strong-armed councils into making those cuts, with fines if they fail to obey her, and she is refusing to use the income tax powers that she now has. She is no longer leading but is frozen to the spot, incapable of protecting our once-proud Scottish education system. Instead of blaming everyone else, will she step up and use the powers that she now has?
I am really surprised that Willie Rennie can bring himself to look a single Scottish voter in the eye. I remind him of what he was telling people in Scotland just a year or so ago, and this is a direct quote:
“Liberal Democrats in the UK government”—
just to remind him, they were in coalition with the Conservatives—
“are building a stronger economy ... here in Scotland with lower taxes ... This is”
what
“the broad UK shoulders enable us to deliver.”
Having misled the Scottish people that the only way to avoid tax rises was to vote no, Willie Rennie now turns round and tells people that they have to pay higher taxes anyway to pay for the cuts that his party helped the Tories to impose on us for the past five years.
Willie Rennie should be utterly ashamed of himself. He should be begging the Scottish people for forgiveness, not handing out sanctimonious lectures to the rest of us—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
—on how to deal with Tory cuts that he bears so much responsibility for.
There she goes again, blaming absolutely everyone else—[Interruption.]
Order.
I remind her that it was the Liberal Democrats who cut taxes for those on low and middle incomes, and that she opposed those tax cuts in this chamber and at Westminster—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Rennie.
She is not interested in those on low or middle incomes; it is all about posturing and blaming everyone else while never accepting responsibility herself. [Interruption.]
Order, Mr Stewart.
The First Minister has not grasped this properly. We can choose to invest £475 million to have a transformational effect on our education system. We can stop the cuts to schools, repair the cuts that the SNP has imposed on our colleges, expand nursery education and invest in a pupil premium.
With a penny for education, we can give every child the chance to get on, provide the skills for our economic progress and get Scotland’s education back to being the world’s best. Does she not see the opportunity in any of that?
We are protecting our national health service, we are investing in social care, we are paying a living wage to every social care worker in our country, we are maintaining the number of teachers in our schools, we are investing in improving attainment and we are protecting household budgets because, unlike Willie Rennie, I do not think that people on incomes as low as £11,000 a year should be paying more tax to compensate for the Tory cuts that he helped the Tories to impose.
I know that Willie Rennie is desperate to forget the five years when his party propped up the Conservatives in government—
Or the four years that you did.
—but, do you know what? The Scottish people are not going to forget the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition.
Four years.
If it is possible for Willie Rennie to sink any lower at the coming election, he sure as hell will do it.
Mr McArthur and Mr Hume, that is just enough.
Drug Assessments (Review)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the review of national health service drug assessments. (S4F-03222)
I am pleased that Dr Brian Montgomery has agreed to undertake an independent review of the Scottish Medicine Consortium’s assessment processes. His review will help us to take forward further reforms in relation to access to new medicines, building on the positive progress that has been achieved already.
Although the SMC’s reforms in 2014, together with other reforms and our own £90 million new medicines fund, have already benefited more than 1,000 families through access to life-saving and life-extending drugs, we want to ensure that the assessment system continues to evolve in order to deliver effectively for patients and the NHS.
I welcome the review and I also welcome the 26 new medicines that have been approved under the new system. However, in 2014, the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, when announcing the proposals, indicated that it was anticipated that new medicines would be made available more quickly. Will the First Minister advise whether the review will evaluate that as well as whether timescales can be further improved for the many patients for whom these medicines are a lifeline?
The overarching aim of the review is to provide safe and timely access to clinically effective medicines at a fair price. We think that improvements can still be made, for example by working with the pharmaceutical industry to get companies’ best offer on price earlier than sometimes happens. That will be one of the issues that the review takes into account.
All of this is about ensuring that these often very difficult decisions about access to drugs are taken as fairly as possible and that we can ensure that as many people as possible can access life-saving and life-extending drugs.
Breast Cancer
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to stop deaths from breast cancer. (S4F-03218)
We recently announced a £450,000 joint partnership with Breast Cancer Now. That will allow more Scottish-led research into breast cancer development to take place, which will help to enhance our knowledge and treatment of the disease.
In addition, our £39 million detect cancer early programme is focused on diagnosing cancer at an early stage, when the chances of survival are higher, so that we can help to save more lives every year. Currently, the number of people in Scotland who live for at least five years after a cancer diagnosis has reached a record high.
We are also committed to publishing a new cancer strategy to ensure that real improvements are made to services, and we are currently working with stakeholders and patients to develop that by spring this year. That will include further investment in cancer services.
The First Minister will be aware of the 2050 challenge campaign that was launched this week by Breast Cancer Now. As a breast cancer survivor myself, I know how crucial that campaign is. However, I am one of the lucky ones. The First Minister will have seen earlier this week Colin Leslie’s heart-breaking account of the loss of his fiancée, Sharon, to breast cancer. No one should have to go through what he has been through, but thousands will, and for years to come, if we do not act now.
Will the First Minister agree to meet me, Colin Leslie and other campaigners to discuss how the Scottish Government can further support efforts to stop by 2050 women and men dying from breast cancer?
Yes. I thank Patricia Ferguson for her question, and I obviously acknowledge the personal experience that she brings to bear on the issue. I am happy to meet her and campaigners.
This is something that we have to work together on. If we are going to tackle not just breast cancer but all cancers, and improve survival rates, we need to do more to detect cancer earlier, which is what we are seeking to do.
I hope that my colleague Richard Lochhead will not mind my saying that I know that his wife has in the past weeks and months been promoting checking for and acting on early signs. That is important, but it is also important that we have the best cancer services to treat people as effectively as possible and—going back to the previous question—that we give people access to life-saving and life-extending drugs as often as possible. We all desperately want real progress on that: after all, I am sure that not a single one of us in the chamber has not in some way, shape or form experienced the devastation of cancer.
I am committed to making sure that we do everything that we can to make progress, and I would be delighted to have Patricia Ferguson’s expertise to help us with that.
Fiscal Framework (Discussions with United Kingdom Government)
To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the fiscal framework. (S4F-03224)
The Deputy First Minister met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday to continue negotiations, and they will meet again on Monday coming.
My position on the matter remains the same as it was when I responded to Ruth Davidson: I want Scotland to get the additional powers that we were promised, but they should not come at a cost to Scotland’s budget. I will not, as First Minister, sign up to a deal that is detrimental to Scotland, nor will I ask Parliament to approve the Scotland Bill if a fair fiscal framework has not been agreed. There remain significant differences in our views, but the Scottish Government is determined to ensure that we secure a deal that is consistent with the intentions of the Smith commission and delivers fairness for Scotland now and in the future.
The First Minister will be aware that the Smith commission and the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee of the Parliament have both agreed that the fiscal framework that will underpin the new powers coming to Parliament must not be to Scotland’s detriment. Will she give a clear commitment that any Government that she leads will never short-change the people of Scotland--and certainly not to the tune of £3.5 billion over the next decade, as is currently being proposed by the UK Treasury?
The whole point of the Smith commission proposals was to give us powers and for us then to bear the risk or, indeed, to reap the benefits of our decisions to use them. There should be no detriment to Scotland either now or in the future simply from the transfer of those powers, and that issue is at the heart of the discussions about the block-grant adjustment. Other issues have still to be resolved in the discussions but, as I have said, that is the issue at the heart of the block-grant adjustment.
We will not sign up to any agreement or deal that will see billions of pounds—or, for that matter, any money—taken, regardless of the decisions that this Government takes, out of Scotland’s budget. We will not sell Scotland short, but will continue to work as hard as we can to get a deal that is fair for everyone.
Before I end First Minister’s questions, I want to say to all members that some of the behaviour in the chamber today has been quite unacceptable. I suggest that members review the footage of First Minister’s question time and consider whether they showed themselves and Parliament in the best light.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
New Global Goals