Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth
In order to get in as many people as possible, I would prefer short and succinct questions, and answers to match.
Scottish Budget (Reductions)
To ask the Scottish Government what reductions it anticipates there will be to the Scottish budget in the years to 2017-18 if Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom. (S4O-02322)
The UK Government set out forecasts of further public spending in the UK spending round announcement on 26 June 2013. The precise implications for Scotland would depend on decisions that a future UK Government would take about departmental budgets and the application of the Barnett formula. However, it is estimated that, on top of the real-terms cut of around 10 per cent to Scotland’s departmental expenditure limit budget that has already been made between 2010-11 and 2015-16, the budget could be subject to a further real-terms cut of between 6 and 8 per cent in the years to 2017-18.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the comments of Professor Jo Armstrong of the Centre for Public Policy for Regions on 7 August, when she said:
“The £2.7 billion real-terms projected cut in day-to-day spending still to come will be increasingly hard to accommodate, especially given the £1.8 billion already experienced since 2009-10.”
Will the cabinet secretary please say what impact such a draconian cut would have on jobs, growth and services in Scotland? Is this not another argument for Scotland to vote yes in next year’s referendum?
The Scottish Government has had to manage the significant reductions in the public finances that have been applied since the spending review of 2010. As a consequence, we have had to take a range of difficult decisions to ensure that our budgets have remained in balance. Had the UK Government exercised the type of financial responsibility that we have delivered, the UK might not be in the financial mess that it is in. We have a strong record of managing public finances and of affording the priorities that we believe are important to the people of Scotland, but that should not in any way disguise the degree of financial pressure and strain that we are managing.
On Mr Gibson’s final point, I agree that if Scotland had control of all the resources that are available to us, we could make a great deal more of a success of the Scottish economy, the Scottish public finances and the quality of life of the people in this country.
Underemployment
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the issues associated with underemployment. (S4O-02323)
The Scottish Government is taking steps to address underemployment in Scotland. Our long-term ambition is to ensure that learners are able to make more successful transitions from school into post-16 education or training and then into work. Through our reform of post-16 education, colleges are being asked to ensure that training opportunities align well with future labour markets.
As the cabinet secretary will know, statistics from 2011-12 have shown that more women are underemployed than men. What is the Scottish Government doing to tackle underemployment in the whole population, and to ensure that the gender gap is not further widened in terms of pay and education?
As Claudia Beamish will be aware, last year the Government convened a summit involving a number of key players in the economy, not least of which was the Scottish Trades Union Congress. We sought to address some of the fundamental issues about women’s participation in the labour market. Some of the arguments have been discussed with the Equal Opportunities Committee as part of its general budget scrutiny, and they were also discussed with the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee during its assessment of material for its inquiry.
Those arguments relate to two fundamental points. The first is the imbalance in gender participation in the labour market, much of which is about long-term and deep-seated differences in the participation of the different genders in the labour market. The second is about the steps that we can take through the education system and some of the measures that the Government is taking on the expansion of childcare provision, for example, to make it possible for more women to enter the labour market. Those are some of the significant issues that the Government is pursuing as part of its approach to improving employability within the Scottish economy. We will continue to do so.
As Claudia Beamish will be aware from her wider interests in Parliament in relation to the national performance framework, the Government attaches significant importance to ensuring the correct balance is achieved in relation to economic development within the Scottish economy, and we will continue to do so in the years to come.
Tourism Industry (VAT Rate)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact it considers a reduction in VAT would have on the Scottish tourism industry. (S4O-02324)
The Scottish tourism industry remains very concerned about the high level of VAT levied on its businesses, especially given that 24 of the 28 European Union member states charge lower VAT rates on hotel accommodation than the UK currently does.
I understand that the industry-led Scottish Tourism Alliance fully supports the campaign for reduced tourism VAT led by the British Hospitality Association and other key tourism bodies that are leading industry pressure on this matter. The Scottish Government has, on a number of occasions, made detailed representation to the United Kingdom Government on the effect of VAT on our tourism industry, and we continue to press the UK Government on the question.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the UK Government requires evidence of the positive impact that a VAT cut can have on the tourism sector, it need only look at Ireland? A recently published report on the effect of the Irish Government’s reduction of VAT on tourism-related goods and services to 9 per cent in 2011 reveals that the move led to the creation of around 10,000 jobs, and a €40 million boost to the exchequer in 2012 alone from increased numbers of visitors from overseas. Ireland, of course, has achieved that because it has control of all the financial levers. Is what has happened there yet another example of the benefits that Scotland could enjoy from independence?
Mr Dey raises a significant issue because, as I cited in my original answer, clear evidence has been marshalled by the Scottish Tourism Alliance and other parties on the differential effect that elements of the VAT regime in the United Kingdom can have on the tourism industry. Of course, VAT is an issue that is beyond the responsibility of the Scottish Government and is outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but it is clear that, if the Parliament had a wider range of financial powers under independence, the Scottish Government would have the choice and the ability to address such issues to ensure that tourism, which is a very successful and important industry for the growth of the Scottish economy, could make an even greater contribution to economic growth within Scotland.
The cabinet secretary is clearly enthusiastic about cutting taxes when the responsibility for them lies elsewhere. Can he confirm that the rumours are true that, in the budget next week, he will announce a major cut in business rates for businesses in the tourism sector, or is it the case that he would rather grandstand on the constitutional issue than take responsibility for taxes that are within his own remit?
I am very surprised by Mr Fraser’s question, because he should be aware that the Scottish Government presides over the most competitive business rates regime in the United Kingdom. If we already have the most competitive business rates regime, Mr Fraser should welcome that position. Of course, Mr Fraser is unlikely to welcome that, because he voted against the provisions in voting against my last budget. [Interruption.]
Presiding Officer, I am simply reminding Parliament that Mr Fraser and his Conservative colleagues, in pressing their buttons to vote against the Scottish Government’s budget, voted against the most competitive business rates regime in the United Kingdom. I am sure that Mr Gavin Brown, who is sitting next to Mr Fraser, could remind him of that, as Mr Brown was the author of the Conservatives’ budget strategy last year. If Mr Fraser needs some reminding of what he voted for, I am sure that Mr Brown will be only too happy to fill in the details and to reinforce what I have just said to Parliament.
Pensions (Triple Lock Guarantee)
To ask the Scottish Government how much its pledge to maintain the so-called triple lock for pensions will cost. (S4O-02325)
The Scottish Government has made a commitment to uprate state pensions by the triple lock in an independent Scotland. The triple lock protects the value of pensions over time, ensuring that they keep pace with average earnings and inflation, with a minimum increase of 2.5 per cent each year. The triple lock is current United Kingdom policy for the basic state pension up to 2015, but the UK Government has not committed to continue the triple lock beyond that—not for current pensioners and not for future pensioners who retire under the new single-tier pension.
Social protection, which includes pensions, is consistently more affordable in Scotland than in the UK, both as a proportion of gross domestic product and as a proportion of tax revenues. A paper on pensions in an independent Scotland will be published in due course and will address those issues in detail.
Given that the Scottish Government does not envisage personal tax rises if Scotland becomes independent, will the state pension age increase to help to pay for the policy?
As Sarah Boyack well knows, current proposals—if we remain part of the United Kingdom—will involve an increase in the state pension age. I have not seen anything in Sarah Boyack’s side of the argument that suggests that the Labour Party in any way takes a different position from the current proposals of the United Kingdom Government on increasing the state pension age; indeed, I have not heard from Sarah Boyack about any aspect of the Labour Party’s commitment on the triple lock. As I understand it, Labour takes exactly the same position on it as the current United Kingdom Government.
As I said to Sarah Boyack in my original answer, the Government will set out in detail in a forthcoming paper the commitments that it intends to make on pensions. I look forward to discussing those issues with Parliament in due course.
Sarah Boyack asked not what the triple lock is but how much it would cost. Given that the policy was published by Mr Swinney several months ago on 18 June, can he please tell the Parliament what the cost of the policy will be? Surely to goodness the Government costed it before he announced it.
As I have made clear to Parliament already and as I have just made clear to Sarah Boyack, the proportion of Scotland’s gross domestic product and tax revenues that is allocated to deal with social protection is lower than the proportion that is allocated to deal with such matters for the United Kingdom. In our pensions paper, the Scottish Government will set out the detail of how we will take the issue forward, in recognition of the fact that pensioners need in their income security and reliability, which they do not have from the United Kingdom.
With Scotland having higher tax raising over the past 30 years than the UK, and given that we have 9.9 per cent of the tax raising in the UK and only 9.3 per cent of the tax spend, with 8.4 per cent of the population, does the cabinet secretary agree that we are in a better position to afford our pensions than the UK is?
The point that Mr Robertson makes is absolutely correct. Scotland contributes more to the UK than it receives in return. Some 9.9 per cent of UK taxes were contributed by Scotland and 9.3 per cent of spending was accounted for in Scotland. As I indicated in my earlier answers, the proportion of GDP and tax revenues that is required to support social protection in Scotland is lower than it is in the rest of the UK, which demonstrates the affordability of pension provision in Scotland and the commitments that the Government is making.
Oil Fund
To ask the Scottish Government in what year it anticipates an oil fund could be set up in an independent Scotland. (S4O-02326)
The fiscal commission working group is developing a fiscal framework to ensure that, from the outset, an independent Scotland will have in place a mechanism to manage year-on-year changes in oil and gas revenues and to ensure that, when appropriate, a proportion of those receipts is invested for the long-term benefit of the people of Scotland. The fiscal commission working group will in the coming weeks publish a report on the operation of an oil stabilisation and savings fund.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer—although he did not provide us with a better answer than the Deputy First Minister managed on Radio Scotland yesterday.
Does the cabinet secretary at least accept that tax revenues from the North Sea cannot be spent twice in an independent Scotland, any more than they can be in any other country? Given the conflicting views that have so far been expressed by Scottish ministers on the matter, will he tell us now whether he plans to take money from public services to pay into an oil fund while Scotland remains in deficit?
The Scottish Government’s position on an oil fund has been absolutely consistent, and it is that we can contribute to an oil fund only when the circumstances and opportunities enable us to do so.
The illustration that I give to Mr Smith is about the last year for which information is available. That information shows that, in 2011-12, Scotland had a relative financial surplus of £4.4 billion. To translate that into other language—for the benefit of Mr Smith—that means that Scotland was in a stronger position, in terms of our public finances, than the rest of the UK. That opens up choices for Scotland to spend more of that differential advantage, to invest more in an oil fund or to reduce the level to which we borrow. However, those opportunities will arise only if we are able to exercise the control that would enable Scotland to take those decisions and to have the responsibility for doing so. Of course, we cannot do that under the current constitutional settlement and will not, if Mr Smith has his way, be able to do it in the foreseeable future.
Scotland has experienced a wasted opportunity because of the way in which our oil revenues have been mismanaged since the 1970s by UK Governments. This is the opportunity for Scotland to take control of those issues and to ensure that we have the ability to invest the wealth of Scotland to create the most secure possible future for the people of Scotland. That will arise only out of independence.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that Alistair Darling was being honest when he was interviewed on the BBC’s “Hardtalk” on 19 August and conceded that UK Governments have wasted oil revenues by not investing in an oil fund? Will the cabinet secretary note that, in that interview, Alistair Darling admitted that there was no question but that Scotland can be successfully independent?
Alistair Darling’s comments are an interesting departure from all that he presided over when he was a minister in the United Kingdom Government. His admission that Scotland has the ability, the capability and the resources to be independent is a welcome concession at such a late date. Given the fact that he has been part of the regime that has so wasted Scotland’s oil resources, his admission that he now sees the advantages of an oil fund is also welcome. Of course, he is not alone—many other commentators have recognised exactly the point that Mr Darling has now made—but it is welcome when we have some conversions in the arguments that our political opponents put forward.
Philips Lighting (Hamilton Plant)
To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is providing to staff at the Philips Lighting plant in Hamilton following the company’s announcement that it will phase out the production of luminaires at the plant. (S4O-02327)
Ministers were concerned to learn of the situation at Philips Lighting, which will be of major concern to the individuals affected, their families and the surrounding area. Mr Ewing spoke with the Hamilton operations manager to offer Scottish Government support, and we have agreed that officials from Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International will meet the company to discuss the situation.
Support has also been offered through our partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—initiative for any employees who may face redundancy. PACE support will be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals involved, in the event that redundancies go ahead.
I hope that that provides reassurance that we will do everything that we possibly can to maximise the effectiveness of those interventions, to minimise the impact of the job losses on the individuals who will be affected, and to ensure that the company and the surrounding area are able to continue to rely on employment in the factory.
As the cabinet secretary said, the recent announcement came as a massive blow to the loyal and long-standing workforce in Hamilton. It was disappointing to learn that the jobs have been outsourced to other countries, including France and Poland. It appears that the loyal workforce at Hamilton has been totally disregarded in the decision that Philips took.
I am also extremely concerned about the implications of the redundancies for the remaining workforce at the Hamilton plant. What assurances can the Scottish Government provide to the remaining workforce that it will do everything it can to guarantee their long-term future at the plant?
I unreservedly accept the concern that Siobhan McMahon has raised. Such a substantive possible loss from the workforce—more than half the workforce—is clearly a matter of real concern.
I assure Siobhan McMahon that, in many circumstances in which there is employment loss, the assistance that Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International are able to provide can lead to improvement in the performance and operation of companies and that, over time, employment can be restored and grow again in individual factories.
We have had a number of examples of that, and I assure her that Scottish Enterprise will take that approach to providing whatever support we can in the short term in order to try to avoid redundancies in the first place and, secondly, to ensure that in the long term, whatever the consequences of employment loss at Philips Lighting, we are able to support the company to grow and develop again. That will be at the heart of the Government’s interventions.
I bring thanks from the workers to whom I have spoken in the Hamilton plant, which is in my constituency, for the action that the Scottish Government took within hours of the announcement last week. Will the minister give us an update on Scottish Development International’s work and what it is thinking about? Across the whole company globally, 7,000 workers have been affected by the announcement, and it seems that the Hamilton numbers are disproportionate to the rest of the global market.
Scottish Development International and Scottish Enterprise will be involved in a number of practical steps. Tomorrow, Scottish Enterprise will meet members of a working party that includes the local management, workforce representatives and representatives from the trade union Unite to discuss the situation. Through Scottish Development International, we will also have discussions with the Dutch management of Philips to try to ascertain what other steps can be taken at that level.
Those are some of the interventions that we will undertake in relation to the company’s business development functions. As I said to Siobhan McMahon a second ago, the local PACE team will be ready to offer particular support in order to assist individuals. As members will appreciate, the PACE team has developed significant expertise in trying to ensure that individuals are able to find alternative employment, should they face redundancy. That will be the case in this circumstance.
Consumer Protection
To ask the Scottish Government what opportunities it considers independence would bring for increased consumer protection. (S4O-02328)
In “Consumer Protection and Representation in an Independent Scotland: Options”, which we published on 13 August, we outlined our vision for consumer protection and representation in an independent Scotland. The paper suggests the creation of a less complex system of consumer protection that better reflects Scotland’s needs and puts consumers, small businesses and communities at the heart of its work.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that unfair and disproportionate delivery charges are a particular concern in many parts of the Highlands and Islands. Does he agree that we could tackle that issue if we had the appropriate powers?
Mr MacKenzie raises a practical issue that is significant and important principally to people in the Highlands and Islands, although it also affects people in other areas that are rural and more isolated. The responsibility for exercising powers over the matter rests with the United Kingdom Government. An opportunity would arise for an independent Scotland to take steps to ensure that no areas of Scotland were put at a disadvantage as a consequence of delivery charges. That is a good example of putting the consumer at the heart of the arrangements that we would put in place to best meet their needs and expectations, and to create a further competitive advantage for the Scottish economy.
Employment Figures
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the latest employment figures. (S4O-02329)
The latest labour market data, which cover April to June 2013, showed that employment in Scotland increased by 13,000 over the quarter. That was the seventh consecutive monthly release to show a rise in the employment rate. At 72.1 per cent, the employment rate in Scotland continues to be higher than the United Kingdom rate.
Those figures, coupled with other recent positive developments in the Scottish economy, show an improving picture. However, much more still needs to be done and key challenges remain. That is why the Government’s priority is to continue to focus on securing the recovery and delivering faster sustainable economic growth.
I am sure that all members across the chamber welcome the good employment figures. However, as the cabinet secretary has said and as I am sure he agrees, we could do even better if we had the full economic powers that only independence can bring us.
The Government is exercising its responsibilities to the full in taking forward the work to support economic recovery. That has been implicit in the steps that we have taken in our budget interventions since the downturn in 2008, and it will remain uppermost in my thinking, on publication of the Government’s budget next week.
We will do all that we can within our existing responsibilities, but I have highlighted to Parliament before the Government’s frustration about a number of matters, such as the substantial reductions in capital expenditure that we in Scotland have experienced. That is one area for which the UK Government is currently responsible which we believe we could, if we had the responsibility in the Scottish Parliament, exercise more in Scotland’s interests.
Waste Plants (Pyrolysis Energy)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that pyrolysis energy-from-waste plants have a role to play in achieving its zero waste target and what its position is on the comment of Pete Wishart MP that they should not be given planning permission as they are a “pollutant belching monstrosity”. (S4O-02330)
Minimising the need to treat residual waste is at the heart of our zero waste plan. That is why we introduced regulations last year to transform recycling services and why we have set a 70 per cent recycling target for Scotland.
Recovering value, including energy, from materials that cannot currently be recycled is preferable to sending them to landfill, where they create harmful greenhouse gases. That is in line with the waste hierarchy, which underpins the zero waste strategy. Applications for waste treatment facilities are determined solely on their individual planning merits.
Is the minister aware that confusion has been caused in the industry and communities by the Scottish ministers’ refusal to support a planning appeal to site an energy-from-waste plant in Perth? In my initial question, I quoted the local Scottish National Party MP, but is the minister aware that John Swinney also backed opponents of the incinerator, while Roseanna Cunningham expressed her health fears about pollutant fumes?
In a letter to campaigners, Richard Lochhead said:
“treating ... waste in thermal treatment plants where the heat can be captured and electricity generated is undoubtedly more preferable than sending to landfill.”
So, can the minister tell us which it is? Are incinerators “pollutant belching” monstrosities that pose a risk to health? Is it only in Perth that there are legitimate health concerns, while at Dovesdale, Carnbroe and Hamilton in Lanarkshire they are safe? Are pyrolysis plants vital components in the zero waste strategy or are they not? Are they safe or are they not?
I call the cabinet secretary—I mean the minister.
Mr McMahon listed a number of formidable representatives for their communities in terms of the views that they represent. Scottish Government policy is clear, but we have to be very careful when considering planning matters. In planning matters, each case is taken on its merits, with all material considerations being taken into account. The planning system has that independence, where the local determining authority will consider a case in the first instance.
As regards regulations, there is a role for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The advice that we would give is that energy from waste has a role to play within a zero waste policy, albeit that it is a limited role. For those reasons, I think that it is important that we continue to ensure that the planning system stays above party politics, which is where I think Mr McMahon would rather take us.
Given Scottish ministers’ decision to refuse the pyrolysis plant in Perth, can the minister explain why a Perthshire businessman has been given the go-ahead by the Scottish Government to build one of these monstrosities in my constituency at Carnbroe in Coatbridge, and could the merit of that particular plant now be reconsidered?
I am very aware of Elaine Smith’s concerns about the application in her constituency and I am conscious of an outstanding commitment to meet the representatives of that campaign. She will recall that it was inappropriate to meet those representatives while the issue was live and then potentially challengeable by judicial review. Now that those considerations have taken their full course, I can meet the representatives and cover the issues that the member has raised in her question, but I repeat again that the planning system will consider each case on its merits, in line with Government policy.
Employment (Zero-hours Contracts)
To ask the Scottish Government what the impact is on employment of the reported increase in the use of zero-hours contracts. (S4O-02331)
Employment policy is currently reserved to Westminster. However, the Scottish Government is actively considering whether issues around the use of zero-hours contracts can form a legitimate consideration for a public body as part of the public procurement process.
The Scottish Government and its agencies do not directly employ people on zero-hours contracts.
Would the cabinet secretary consider writing to every non-departmental public body in Scotland to request that they take steps to ensure that they do not employ anyone directly on a zero-hours contract?
I am certainly happy to consider Mr Martin’s suggestion. If he has particular issues or concerns about zero-hours contracts, I will be very happy to consider them if he draws them to my attention, as well as to consider the suggestion that he has made today.
Small Businesses (Assistance)
To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it gives to small businesses. (S4O-02332)
The Scottish Government recognises the valuable contribution that small businesses make to our economy and is committed to maintaining a supportive environment to assist them to grow and thrive. For example, on 12 June we announced an £88 million investment in helping Scotland’s young people into work and supporting small business growth. The investment package includes a £37.85 million small and medium-sized enterprises growth programme to assist small businesses to grow and create an expected 3,000 jobs across Scotland.
Earlier today, I outlined a range of reforms to the rates system to better support businesses, including the 89,000 recipients of the small business bonus scheme, who will be delighted, I am sure, that the scheme will continue.
The minister’s announcement was indeed welcome. In my constituency, and indeed throughout South Lanarkshire, SMEs have benefited from young people being placed with them through the youth jobs fund wage subsidy programme. That programme is currently producing sustainment rates of 96 per cent of young people still in work after one year. It is a credit to South Lanarkshire Council and its partners. Would the minister consider extending that success and using funding from the youth employment Scotland initiative to support that programme in delivering what could be a short, uncomplicated subsidised wage programme such as the youth jobs fund for small employers right across the country?
I call the cabinet secretary—sorry, the minister. I have promoted him again.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I am keen to hear more of the scheme in South Lanarkshire, and Linda Fabiani is correct to highlight the success that it and many other schemes have had. We have an on-going dialogue with local authorities to ensure that the various strands of our youth employment strategy are supported and can develop and are based on good evidence from areas where success is being achieved. We hope that such success can be repeated throughout the country. The strategy, with its range of packages, is led by the excellent work of the Minister for Youth Employment, Angela Constance, and is giving young people hope in these very difficult times.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that it is some time since he raised the threshold for the small business bonus scheme. Many businesses in my constituency and throughout Scotland are just above the current threshold for support, and raising the bar would stimulate them. Will the cabinet secretary—or indeed the minister—tell us whether he has any plans to raise the threshold in the near future?
I see that such mistakes are catching among the Presiding Officers. I call the minister.
I am glad that the First Minister is in the chamber to hear the recommendations from other members.
The outcome of the consultation on business rates and the Government’s response were published today. The thresholds for rates, exemptions and so on would be a matter for the budget process. The SBBS has been particularly successful, and the number of recipients has increased. I am sure that John Scott will be delighted to hear that we are bound to consult on a proposal that will give further powers to local authorities to create local relief schemes that can further support economic recovery and regeneration in communities throughout Scotland, not least in our town centres. Small businesses will welcome that move, in addition to the most generous rates relief package that the Government has delivered.
Employment
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help people into employment. (S4O-02333)
I call the real cabinet secretary this time.
At 72.1 per cent, the employment rate in Scotland is higher than the rate in the rest of the United Kingdom. At 19.1 per cent, youth unemployment remains lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. The Scottish Government is determined to reduce unemployment further and, through commitments such as the youth employment Scotland fund and the community jobs Scotland partnership, we are tackling unemployment while supporting growth in Scotland’s third sector and among small and medium-sized enterprises.
I thank the real cabinet secretary for that answer. To come back to the Philips situation, the team there is facing challenges right now because Westminster has imposed on us a 45-day consultation period. The workers to whom I have spoken have said, “That’s my next month’s mortgage payment,” and they are very worried about having only 45 days in which to go through the process and about the dangers that that poses for the workforce.
Christina McKelvie raises a valid issue regarding the process. The Scottish Government must operate within the framework that is established by law, so we must take steps as promptly as possible to find a different way for those companies to proceed. In that way, we can ensure that any actions that can be taken to improve the prospects and opportunities for avoiding loss of employment—or, should there be unemployment, to encourage a growth in activity within companies—are taken as quickly and effectively as possible, first to protect employment, or, alternatively, to recover opportunities for the members of staff who are involved. I assure Christina McKelvie that the Government is focusing entirely on how we can best do that.
Sustainable Economic Growth
To ask the Scottish Government how planning and regeneration can help achieve sustainable economic growth. (S4O-02334)
Planning and regeneration can help to achieve sustainable economic growth by proactively supporting development that contributes to such growth and high-quality sustainable places. The planning system enables development of growth-enhancing activities by providing a supportive business environment while protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and built environment. The current review of the Scottish planning policy will strengthen those principles.
Will the minister set out the timescales in which national planning framework 3 and the new Scottish planning policy will come into effect?
The original timescale was that NPF3, because of the statutory requirements, would be concluded and adopted in June 2014, and that the Scottish planning policy, which does not require a statutory process, could be adopted by the very end of this year or the start of next year.
However, I am convinced of the benefits of carrying out the consultation in tandem and giving the Parliament the opportunity to discuss the Scottish planning policy and national planning framework 3, so I propose a new timescale for the Scottish planning policy to be considered, so that we give the Parliament its say, with both documents being approved and adopted in June 2014.
North Sea Oil and Gas Resources
To ask the Scottish Government how much it estimates the difference is between the wholesale value of and taxation generated from remaining North Sea oil and gas resources. (S4O-02335)
Up to 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent could still be recovered from the North Sea, with a potential wholesale value of up to £1.5 trillion. The value of future North Sea tax receipts will depend on a range of factors, including prices, production levels, investment and, which is important, a stable tax regime. However, it is clear that future tax receipts from the sector will be substantial and represent a significant resource for the people of Scotland. Over the six years to 2017-18, Scottish Government analysis suggests that North Sea production could generate between £41 billion and £57 billion in tax revenue.
It is clear to everyone that there is a big difference between the two figures. Why therefore did the First Minister deliberately attempt to conflate wholesale value and tax revenue when he claimed that the remaining value of North Sea oil and gas was worth
“£300,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland”?
The First Minister is sitting next to Mr Swinney, so perhaps the cabinet secretary will ask him.
Mr Bibby has plenty of opportunities to ask the First Minister questions. Maybe I could give him a tutorial on how to lodge a question, although he seems to have managed to do that in this case. Perhaps he needs—[Interruption.]
Order.
Maybe all Labour members need a wee tutorial to help them to work out how to submit a question to the First Minister.
The position is crystal clear—[Interruption.] Well, there is a wholesale value for North Sea oil and gas and there is a tax receipt that comes to the United Kingdom Government as a consequence of the tax regime that is put in place.
The big question is why on earth Scotland is not getting access to the proceeds of the North Sea oil and gas tax regime, which Mr Bibby seems to be quite happy to leave to be squandered, just as they have been squandered over the previous 40 years, by the same bunch in Westminster that has made such a mess of the public finances.
Members will forgive me for deciding that in Scotland we would make a much better job of determining the future of our country and how to use our resources. We have made a success of that in relation to the control of other areas of policy in Scotland and we can do that on oil and gas, the public finances and the macro-economic situation much better than Westminster will ever manage to do.
European Pension Regulations
To ask the Scottish Government how an independent Scotland would deal with the impact of European pension regulations. (S4O-02336)
The Scottish Government intends that detailed negotiations to secure the transition to Scotland’s independent European Union membership will begin immediately after the referendum and include negotiations to determine the specific terms and, where necessary, any transitional arrangements under which an independent Scotland will take its place as a full EU member state.
I thank the cabinet secretary for a long response, which did not shed much light on the issue. He will of course be aware that Mr Salmond’s comment in the Scottish Parliament on 2 May, that
“We are not seeking an opt-out from the EU regulations”,—[Official Report, 2 May 2013; c 19313.]
is entirely incompatible with his comment on the matter in the Sunday Post on 4 August, when he said:
“The way to deal with it is to get a derogation”.
Which is it to be? Is this indicative of the mess that the nationalists have got themselves into on such an important issue in just three months, or was the First Minister perhaps just confused?
On 2 May, the First Minister referenced the report from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which set out three approaches that could be taken to resolve the issue. Those involve an exemption from existing schemes, a longer grace period and the opportunity to construct schemes in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what the First Minister said to Parliament on 2 May. The other point that the First Minister made was that it is essential that we have dialogue and discussion with the relevant authorities, including the United Kingdom Government, as to how we proceed on the issue.
On the subject of a mess, let me talk about pensions in the United Kingdom. All the issues relating to pension funds that we wrestle with in this country are a direct product of the decision that was made by Gordon Brown to raid the pension funds. That is where the mess has come from. The series of problems that we must try to resolve came about because Gordon Brown was intent on raiding pension funds. In 1997, when I was in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party was outraged at the steps that Gordon Brown took to raid pension funds. Labour members should be a great deal more concerned about that than their better together friends in this parliamentary debate.
Previous
OathNext
Helicopter Incident