The next item of business is a debate on supporting public services, tackling inequality and growing Scotland’s economy.
14:28
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish you and all members a very happy new year.
Given our discussions at question time a few moments ago, I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to everyone across the country who is dealing with the impacts of flooding, and to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who have been working over the past few days, and who continue to work, extremely hard to respond to the challenges that the flooding is posing.
The year 2016 will be another hugely important year for Scotland. That is why it is right to use this first debate of the new year to look back at the progress that has been made and, more important, to look to the future. Over the next four months there must be a great, ambitious and thriving debate in Scotland about how we will build on our achievements, address the challenges that we face and, in so doing, realise the full potential of our nation. Let me be clear that it is a debate that I, my Government and my party are determined to lead in the months ahead. It is on the strength of our record, ideas and vision for this country that we will ask people to elect us as Scotland’s Government for an historic third term.
In setting out our future priorities, we are building on strong foundations. Today, for example, our national health service has a record budget, has record numbers of staff working in it and is—as we have seen this morning—delivering some of the best and fastest care in the United Kingdom. I again take the opportunity to thank NHS staff for their efforts day in and day out.
We have more world-class universities per head of population than almost any other country in the world. Our universities are also accessible to a higher proportion of students from deprived backgrounds than was the case in 2007. I am proud that this Government has ensured that our universities’ success has not, crucially, been achieved at the expense of the free tuition on which our students depend.
We also have a reformed school curriculum. We have seen record exam passes, and the information that we have about performance in the upper stages of secondary school shows signs of a narrowing of the attainment gap. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we have the potential to become a world leader in education.
We have also taken tough but necessary decisions to reform our police and fire services. As the Deputy First Minister has just said, we have in recent days seen the benefits of the new arrangements in our fire and rescue services as they have responded to flooding.
I do not know whether the First Minister has moved on from the education section of her speech; perhaps she has missed the section on colleges.
I will be coming back to education, so perhaps Neil Findlay could exercise a bit of patience.
We have seen crime fall to a 41-year low, and we have built new colleges, schools, hospitals and health centres in every single part of our country. We have not met but have exceeded our five-year target to deliver 30,000 affordable homes, and we have helped into home ownership 20,000 people—three quarters of whom are under the age of 35.
Those are all hard practical achievements. Just as important, although less tangible, is that we have, by trusting the people of this country to decide their future, helped to create a flourishing of democratic debate and have played our part in building renewed national confidence.
Those achievements have made society stronger as a whole, but they have also made a difference for individuals across our nation. It is worth reflecting on the impact on people of just some of those initiatives. For example, before prescription charges were abolished by this Government, 600,000 families who were earning as little as £16,000 a year had to pay for their medicines for conditions including asthma. Now they receive essential medication without financial worry.
In 2007, just 85 per cent of hospital in-patients and day-case patients were seen within 18 weeks, which was the waiting time back then. Last year, 95 per cent were seen within 12 weeks.
In 2007, just 45 per cent of school students stayed on until year 6; now 62 per cent do so. That is because, among other things, we took the decision to retain the education maintenance allowance when it was being abolished by the UK Government.
At the start of 2014, just 4 per cent of Highlands and Islands’ households had access to superfast broadband; by the end of this year, the figure will be 84 per cent, which is making a major difference to the opportunities and quality of life in our rural communities.
On those and many other indicators, we should be proud of our achievements. Our challenge is to build on them. In the run-up to the election, we will set out a range of ambitious plans that will, over the next five years, help to transform our country even further.
Let me make it clear that education will be at the front and centre of our plans for the next session of Parliament. Our attainment fund is already helping more than 300 primary schools across the country. In the coming weeks, we will set out further plans to achieve both excellence and equity in education by building on the work that we are already doing through the attainment challenge. That will start tomorrow, when I will publish the new national improvement framework to ensure that our focus on closing the attainment gap is driven by robust evidence on children’s progress in primary and early secondary school.
In health, we must focus ever more on the—
Before the First Minister moves on from education, new official Government figures show that only 7 per cent of two-year-olds are receiving nursery education. The First Minister’s promise was that 27 per cent would. How can she talk about a revolution in education and in childcare when she cannot even meet her timid plans?
We are seeking to increase the number of two-year-olds who take advantage of our commitment to free nursery education and early years education. I am happy to write in more detail to Willie Rennie about that. Because of the time of year when those figures are gathered, they tend not to capture all the young people who go into early years education, so the current figure is already much higher than that which Willie Rennie cited. He is shaking his head, but I am happy to write to him with the detail.
Let us go for the previous year’s figure, which was supposed to be 15 per cent. Even if the figures are old, the current figure is still half that. The First Minister is not even meeting the previous year’s commitment. She is not fulfilling her promise on nursery education. When will she step up to the mark?
Willie Rennie has to understand that we are funding provision of early years education for 27 per cent of two-year-olds. That is why we are focusing so much on ensuring that parents take up that opportunity. I have offered to write to Willie Rennie, because the figures that he cited are already out of date. We remain focused on ensuring that we increase the numbers of young people who take advantage of that commitment.
I will move on to health. We must focus ever more on the needs of our older people, which is why the process of reshaping care is well under way. Health and social care integration is the most significant reform of how we deliver healthcare since the creation of the national health service. In the coming months, we will set out further plans to shift the balance of care and the balance of investment even more decisively towards primary and social care. We have already set out plans to create five new elective treatment centres in order to meet growing demand for hip and knee replacements and cataract operations. In the weeks to come, we will set out detailed plans to further improve child and maternal healthcare, cancer care and mental health services.
Our ambition for public services is matched in other areas. Last month, we received the final report of the commission on local tax reform. Since 2007, households across the country have, of course, benefited from the council tax freeze. In the coming weeks, building on the commission’s report, we will make proposals for a fairer and more progressive system of local taxation. I call on the other parties to do likewise so that the people of Scotland can make their choice at the election.
We will also set out plans to use new welfare powers to create a distinctively Scottish approach to social security.
Will the First Minister take an intervention?
I want to make some progress.
We will continue to do everything that we can to mitigate the bedroom tax, for example, and to shield people from the worst impact of Tory cuts, but our approach will not just be about mitigating bad UK decisions; we will reject Westminster‘s sanctions-based approach and will place the dignity of individuals at the heart of what we do. Delivery of efficient public services and delivery of humane social security are among the ways in which we will create a fairer and more prosperous country. Make no mistake: those two ambitions go together. We want a society in which strong public services are underpinned by a successful economy, and in which our nation’s prosperity is stronger because it is better balanced.
Our commitment to sustainability means that we will continue to prioritise action to meet our ambitious climate change targets. We want everyone to be able to contribute their talents in full and to be well rewarded for doing so.
Our employability services will focus on improving individual skills and confidence, and on helping people into productive employment. We will promote greater gender equality in the workplace and we will build on the approach that means that Scotland already has one of the highest female employment rates anywhere in the European Union, with greater support for people who are returning to work after maternity leave and increased efforts to tackle the pay gap. We will also build on the success that we have seen over the past 12 months in setting out action to extend even further payment of the real living wage.
We will support internationalisation and innovation as the bedrock of a successful modern economy. We will publish an action plan for manufacturing and a new trade and investment strategy to grow our exports and maintain our position as a leading destination for inward investment. Indeed, it is precisely because we need to strengthen the global links that are so vital to economic growth that we plan to reduce air passenger duty.
Our review of business rates will ensure that Scotland continues to have a competitive business tax environment, and we will set out how we will use new powers over tax fairly and progressively.
We will also continue our strong investment in infrastructure. By the end of this year, the new Queensferry crossing will be completed. Work on dualling the A9 has begun. We will also see major investment in the Aberdeen bypass, the central Scotland motorway network and rail services between our major cities.
We will boost house building even further with our commitment to building 50,000 affordable homes by the end of the next parliamentary session, backed by investment of more than £3 billion. Of course, we will also continue to help people into home ownership through our successful shared equity schemes.
Let me make it clear that our most transformational infrastructure investment in the next parliamentary session will not be in a bridge or a road; it will be in our investment to transform early years education and childcare by providing parents with 30 hours a week of Government-funded childcare. That is double the current provision; it will enable parents to return to work, to pursue their careers, and to know that their children are being well cared for, well educated and given the best start in life. As I have made clear previously, as we extend childcare, we will focus as much on quality as on quantity, with investment in teaching skills—especially in our most deprived areas—as well as in bricks and mortar.
We will use the powers that we have as a Government to the full. Of course, I believe as strongly today as I always have that independence is the best future for our country. That is why, in the months to come, we will also lead a renewed debate on how the enduring principle of the case that decisions about Scotland are best taken by people who live here is relevant to and demanded by the circumstances of the world in which we live today. We will make that case positively and powerfully, and we will do it in a realistic and relevant way. In doing so, I am confident that, over the next few years, we will build majority support for that proposition.
My party enters the new year riding high in the polls. However, the support that we enjoy today has not come easy, but has been hard earned over many years. As we now seek the endorsement of the Scottish people for a third term in office, we will not take one single vote for granted. During the next few months, no matter what the polls say, we will not assume success. We will work for it—we will work harder than we have ever worked before. Our perspective for the future will be ambitious, upbeat, visionary and detailed. The coming months will see this Government and my party set out plans to invest in and improve our public services, to innovate and grow our economy, and to tackle inequality. Our plans will mark a new phase in Scotland’s journey. They will see us take the next steps towards fulfilling our great national potential. I hope that our plans will win the trust and support of all those whom we are so privileged to represent.
14:43
Presiding Officer, I wish you and all members a very happy new year. I also associate myself with the First Minister’s remarks about those who have been affected by the floods and all those people who are working to keep us safe.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Sir Paul Grice, who has just left the chamber, on his well-deserved recognition, which I know that he will accept on behalf of all those who work so hard behind the scenes to keep our democracy working. Voters should know that any frustration that they feel at our political process is the blame of parliamentarians, never of the Parliament.
I look forward to 2016 with hope and ambition. As elected representatives of the people, we have the potential to achieve more change in one day’s work than many can achieve in a lifetime. The power that is held in this Parliament places a special responsibility on us, and that responsibility will only grow. To make the most of our opportunity, we have to change people’s lives for the better. We have an incredible opportunity to use the power of this Parliament to break from austerity, to restore aspiration for the generation that has been left behind in the past few years and to tackle the poverty and inequality that holds too many Scots back. We can close the education gap, pay carers the living wage, secure our NHS for the future and help people to own their own home. That is what I resolve to work for at the start of this new year.
It is the first day back. Does the First Minister come to the Parliament to propose measures to deal with the decline in our schools? Does she come to explain why the Government has not abolished delayed discharge in the NHS? Does she come to talk about the future of our economy, how to prepare for the jobs of the future and how to meet the challenges of an ageing society? Does she come to talk about the jobs crisis in our North Sea oil industry? Of course not.
The member has just mentioned a jobs crisis in the North Sea oil industry. There is no crisis. We have just extracted more oil than ever before in the North Sea. [Interruption.]
Order.
We have the most skilled workforce in the North Sea and the industry is booming.
I think the member’s constituents will find that an absolutely astonishing remark, as will the 50,000 people directly employed by the oil industry in Aberdeen and the 50,000 people indirectly employed in related jobs in the surrounding areas. That truly is an astonishing remark to start this year with.
The First Minister returned to the chamber with a statement launching her election campaign. It is politics first, the possibilities of power second. When I saw her adverts in the paper asking for people to trust her, after nearly a decade in office, and to give her another chance to deliver the change that she promised at the previous election and the one before that, I was reminded of the SNP’s sales pitch last time. The slogan then was “record, team, vision.”
Let us turn to that record. Elected on a promise of cutting class sizes, the SNP instead cut teacher numbers and now it will cut local school budgets. It was elected on a promise to protect NHS spending and yet its own auditors confirmed that it instead cut NHS spending. Elected on a promise to abolish student debt, it has doubled it and cut student support. It was elected on a promise to create an opportunity economy, and yet six out of 10 new jobs are low-wage and insecure—and meanwhile it has slashed college numbers.
What about the First Minister’s team? We have an education secretary who cannot even answer basic questions from childcare campaigners on how she plans to deliver the previous childcare promise that she made, let alone the new one made today. We have a justice minister who did not even bother to meet the chief constable while Police Scotland was engulfed by crisis after crisis. We have a health secretary who has now failed on her personal promise to eliminate delayed discharge by the end of last year and has instead managed to turn the annual NHS winter crisis into an all-year-round NHS crisis. We have a finance secretary, who, rather than ending austerity, has delivered a budget welcomed only by the Tory benches. The nationalist front-bench members are making faces, but a team who refuse to accept responsibility—[Interruption.]
Order.
I know that the members sitting behind Mr Swinney cannot see his face, but I promise them that it is a picture.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
A team who refuse to accept responsibility for the power that they have simply cannot unlock the potential of the powers that are coming.
What about vision? The SNP stands for independence. We know that. We respect that.
No, you don’t.
Yes, we do.
Order.
What else does the SNP stand for? Who else in Scotland does it stand with? Who does it stand up to? On the bedroom tax, the living wage, the education gap, the social care crisis, living rents and fairer taxes, every time we have pressed it, pushed it and pleaded with it to deliver the change that Scotland needs, it has had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. Every time, it chooses the easy politics of grievance over the hard choices of radical change.
Looking at the First Minister’s pitch for re-election in the newspaper adverts this week, we can see that this time it is not about team, record and vision; this time the offer is just more of the same. Scotland cannot keep waiting for the change that it is crying out for. If she has not delivered that change after nearly a decade in charge—with all her power and a majority in this session of Parliament—why should people wait another five years? We can do so much more if we have a Government that looks beyond the politics at what is possible. To borrow a phrase from the First Minister, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change Scottish politics and, in doing so, to change Scotland for the better. We have a chance to leave behind the arguments of the past and use the opportunity that real power brings to deliver real change and break from Tory austerity. That is what we need. That future is in our hands. We just need a party in government that has the ambition to seize it.
When the First Minister was first elected to this Parliament—when she stood where I do now, in what is my first session in this Parliament—and when she looked at those in power and held them to account, she would never have been satisfied by the excuses that she makes in this chamber. When she responds with the usual “SNP bad. Talking Scotland down” and blames Westminster—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.
She knows that those are just excuses. They are a way of evading responsibility for the power that she holds. It is time for real change, not excuses. We can do so much better for the people who are counting on us. Rather than adding to austerity by giving a tax cut worth hundreds of millions of pounds to an airline industry that is already booming—an inexcusable tax cut in an age when climate change wreaks such havoc around the world—she could offer an alternative and help people from my generation whom the aspiration of owning their own home has passed by.
Rather than managing Tory austerity with a one-year budget that will see the children in our schools facing cuts, we could set a three-year budget and grasp the new tax powers to ask the wealthier to pay more to ensure that children, regardless of what their parents earn or where they live, get an education that they deserve—an education that allows them to aspire to anything and liberates them from any predetermined destiny.
Rather than having another winter in which emergency teams are hurriedly dispatched to accident and emergency departments in our national health service, we can deal with delayed discharge by investing in social care and paying a living wage to care workers across Scotland.
That is the radical change that Labour will make. If people vote for Labour, with both votes, they will be voting for leadership that is in a hurry to change things—not for five more years of excuses.
One phrase in the adverts rang true—that the Scottish National Party “will never stop campaigning.” Nearly a decade into government, it is time that the First Minister stopped campaigning and started truly governing. It is time to use the power of the Scottish Government. In this election, Labour will offer the real change that Scotland wants and needs now.
14:53
I add new year wishes from these benches, and offer my thanks and those of my party to all the emergency workers and council staff who were hard at work while Parliament was in recess.
Fourteen months ago, on the day that the First Minister was elected to office, I made my own case for an alternative Scottish Conservative Government. I seem to recall that I was slightly pipped into second place, but the case that I put forward was clear. It was aimed not at ending devolution but at developing it. It was driven by our desire to use the powers of this Parliament to push more power into communities and to increase freedom and choice. We had a commitment to our public services: a sustainable NHS, a police service that local communities could once again trust, an education system that strives for excellence and an economy that works for us all.
I spoke up for a Government that is there to help, not hector; for a Government that does not seek to stifle individual freedom or crowd out society but that uses its power and influence to release people’s potential and empower communities for the better.
As we head towards the election in May, those are the same principles on which the Scottish Conservatives will stand: a principled, practical Scottish alternative to the SNP with, as its foundation stone, our support—head, heart, body and soul—for Scotland’s place in our United Kingdom.
I am not as naive as the Labour Party leader on this matter. The SNP must be held to its pledge to guarantee that there will be no second referendum for a generation, and I will never apologise for standing up for the union—and, unlike the case with some parties, I can assure people that that goes for every Scottish Conservative candidate.
The Labour Party has had nine years—and six leaders—since this SNP Government came to power to act as a competent and effective official Opposition, with all the extra parliamentary powers and resource that that entails. However, in those nine years, it has comprehensively failed in the only two duties that an official Opposition has. It has failed to hold the Government to account and it has failed to put forward a positive alternative vision for our country. I stand ready to do both.
The hard truth is that the SNP is in a stronger position now than when Labour entered Opposition in 2007. I think that something in Scotland needs to change, and if the electorate does not change the Government in May, they should consider changing the official Opposition—and the Scottish Conservatives stand ready to serve. [Interruption.]
Order.
I see that the battle of ideas ahead of the election has begun already. Indeed, only this morning, Scottish Labour has pocketed a good Conservative idea: that of supporting first-time buyers through help to buy. I believe that that is progress, although only Scottish Labour could base its flagship spending announcement on completely non-existent money.
Scottish Labour’s nine years in the wilderness seem to have taught it nothing. We, however, have learned. We have learned first and foremost to focus on the priorities of the people of Scotland. We know that nothing matters more to them than providing opportunities for the next generation. During this campaign, that is our focus.
Our paper on state schools, which was published this morning, proposes several policies that could be considered now, including more autonomy for schools, an independent inspectorate and greater support for literacy and numeracy. It also includes a proposal that I hope will be received warmly by our bookworm First Minister: a First Minister’s reading challenge, which will inspire children with regard to the pleasures of a good book. I am glad to hear that the SNP will publish tomorrow its national improvement framework for education, and I look forward to its findings. I dearly hope that the party of independence will see fit to give some independence to Scotland’s schools.
Over the coming days, we will unveil our plans on childcare and on support for greater skills, and, over the coming weeks and months, we will set out our belief in a fair Scottish deal, including 1,000 extra nurses for the NHS, paid for by prescription contributions from those who can afford to make them; putting a vocational education back on the same footing as an academic one and rebuilding, not decimating, our colleges; and, most of all, an economic strategy that works for the long term and sets out how we become a country of full employment, building a working Scotland no matter where in it people live. We will soon also be able to draw on the findings of the independent commission on fair and competitive taxation, headed by Sir lain McMillan, on how we best use the huge new powers coming to this place. As the First Minister says, it will be a great debate, and it is one that we on this side of the chamber relish.
Too often in this Parliament, the debate has focused on ourselves—on the powers that we have, the powers that we do not have and on the powers that are coming. I fear that that will always be the case when we are governed solely by a party whose primary goal and purpose is the break-up of Britain. I can assure people that, for the course of the next session of Parliament, we on these benches will demand that this Parliament and whatever Government is formed focus on the communities that we serve.
Like a majority of Scots, we want to move on from the false grievance, the unnecessary division and the endless complaints. We will make sure their voice is heard loud and clear.
Before we move to the open debate, I say to members that, because I allowed topical questions to run on a bit, we are tight for time in this debate. It is therefore likely that the speaking time of some of the later speakers will be cut to five minutes, so they should be prepared for that.
14:59
That was an astonishing speech from the leader of the Conservative Party, who said that we must hold the Government to account then proceeded to attack the Opposition. The SNP ministers must be quaking in their boots at such logic.
I will focus on our vision for our country and my party’s plan for the next five years. First, I wish everyone a happy new year and thank the emergency service workers who have displayed huge dedication over the past few weeks and days.
I will set out why four key liberal values should be at the heart of the next parliamentary session. They are that every individual should be free to achieve their potential, that we should stand with the weak against the strong, that power is safer when it is shared and that we are trustees of the world and must pass on a sustainable legacy.
My challenge is that the best way to deliver on those liberal values is to get behind Scotland’s liberal force. With only five MSPs in the Parliament, we have achieved much. We have stood up for college places, made and won the case for extending nursery education for two-year-olds and led successful campaigns against unjustified stop and search practices and armed police. We have also championed mental health services, which are often the poor relation in the NHS, and provided the most effective challenge to the Government on Police Scotland. We have provided strong liberal voices. With more MSPs, those voices will be much louder.
I admire Nicola Sturgeon for what she has achieved in becoming First Minister and winning emphatically last May. She should be pleased and, to judge from her speech, there is no doubt that she is pleased with herself. However, I suggest that she is a little too pleased.
The past five years in the Scottish Parliament have been dominated by independence. That is fair enough, as it was the SNP’s explicitly stated manifesto commitment. However, there is little doubt that, while independence was in the front seat, the police, schools, the NHS and our environment were stuck in the boot. Even though some people found the experience uplifting, there is also little doubt that the referendum divided many communities, families and friendships. I have some advice for the SNP: for the sake of our public services and the unity of the country, it should move on from the constitutional debate.
Will Willie Rennie give way?
Not just now.
That advice applies equally to the Conservatives, who seem as eager as the SNP is to continue that damaging debate. I remain a strong supporter of the United Kingdom, but we all need to move on from the constitutional debate. Instead, the next five years should be dominated by a bright, liberal and green programme for Scotland.
People deserve the best healthcare that is available, so we need to reverse the decline in the NHS. That is why we support a step change in mental health services, the recruitment of more general practitioners and social care that meets the needs of our growing elderly population.
The planet must be protected, so we need to end the habit of missing Scotland’s climate change targets. That is why we support action on climate change, including warmer homes, better public transport and an end to opencast coal mining.
Our traditional Scottish freedoms must be protected, whether that relates to the excessive use of stop and search, armed police or an identity superdatabase. We must also bring an end to stripping power from communities and hoarding it in Edinburgh. That is why we support a reform programme that includes transferring power to communities, protecting our civil liberties and empowering the police, nurses, doctors and teachers to do their jobs.
Our children and young people deserve the best education, so we need to reverse the decline in our once leading education system. That is why we support proper investment, ambitious nursery education expansion and a pupil premium to give every child the chance to get a good job and realise their potential.
I will give members an example, to which I referred earlier. The annual schools census in September found that only 7.3 per cent of two-year-olds were registered for early learning and childcare. The level was supposed to be 27 per cent. The First Minister said that the figure was out of date but, if we take the previous year’s figure, which was 15 per cent, we are 50 per cent short—that is only half of the target.
Therefore, the Government is failing on nursery education. How can we believe any of its promises on a massive expansion of nursery education if it cannot even deliver the timid and pathetic commitment that it has given on two-year-olds?
Let us contrast that with the Liberal Democrat plan for education for our children that is the best in the world again, for an NHS that delivers the best available care, for an environment programme to protect our planet and for a reform programme to return to traditional Scottish freedoms.
Could you draw to a close please, Mr Rennie?
That is the plan that will deliver opportunity for everyone. It is about standing with the weak against the strong, sharing power and building a sustainable world for the future. With just five MSPs, Liberal Democrats have punched above our weight—just imagine what we can do with more.
I am afraid that you must close.
We need more strong liberal voices in Parliament to advance that bright, liberal and green Scotland.
15:05
Everybody has been wishing each other a happy new year and it would be wrong of me not to do the same. Shamefully, I neglected to do that when I passed the First Minister in the street in Glasgow yesterday—we gave each other a wave, but I forgot to say happy new year, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to correct that. I wish the First Minister, all colleagues—including you, Presiding Officer—and others who work in the public services in Scotland a very happy new year.
The First Minister has brought to us a debate with three broad headings: public services, tackling inequality and economic growth. Those issues are not separate; they are deeply connected and are about our society’s future. There is a long-standing commitment among the majority of those across the Scottish political spectrum to resist the agenda on privatising and diminishing public services. That applies to most, but not all, political parties in the Scottish political spectrum.
However, we know that the pressure will increase in coming years. Partly but not exclusively as a result of UK-driven cuts, public services in Scotland will be under increasing pressure to outsource, privatise and diminish the scope of what they do. Let us be clear that a tax-cutting agenda in the next session of the Scottish Parliament—whether it benefits aviation, as some have argued it should, or high-paid individuals such as us as a result of progressively lower local taxation in real terms—will make the pressure on public services worse over the next session.
Therefore, the Green Party will make a clear commitment to introduce proposals on local taxation that are just and progressive. There is a third priority for taxation that the First Minister failed to mention, which is that the proposals must be adequate to fund local services of the scale and quality that Scotland deserves and to ensure that local councils have the ability to set economic policies that are right for their local circumstances. Greens will most certainly ensure that.
On inequality, the Scottish Government has a clear intent to close the gap between rich and poor. Again, the context is partly set by the UK Government, which has pursued welfare reforms that will be destructive to that agenda. For example, there are reforms to tax credits, on which the cuts have been not defeated but merely delayed, and to a host of other welfare aspects. The context on that is set not just by the UK Government but often by big business and the ethics-free zone of market power. Too much of what should be democratically accountable power has been handed to big business over the years and decades.
Just one example is the introduction of a new upper age band for workers who are aged over 25. That will give such workers a small income benefit, although it will not be enough to make up for the tax credits that they will lose out on. However, it will also give big businesses an incentive to put more of their workers, including younger workers, on zero-hours contracts so that those businesses can decide who they will give shifts to and find new and creative ways of reducing their wage bills. Exploitation will not be ended under the proposal; it will merely be changed. However, in discussions with the Scottish Government, there still seems to be resistance to introducing conditionality in publicly funded Government support schemes and business support services that could give companies incentives to shift to ethical employment practices.
We need to be bolder. Scotland’s Parliament and Scotland’s Government can be bolder on that agenda and the Greens will come forward with proposals to make sure that that happens.
On the third leg of the debate topic—growth—members know well the traditional Green critique. Measuring our economy simply on the basis of gross domestic product growth means that we fuel inequality. We do not support economic activity that benefits those who need the benefit least and which is often predicated on exploiting people and the planet.
Green energy, for example, shows up in our GDP figures, but so would fracking. GDP measures all the supportive and constructive stuff in our society and all the negative and destructive stuff and just calls it all positive. We need to move away from that agenda.
The opportunities for Scotland are extraordinary at the moment. The world is changing in so many ways, and any process of change opens up opportunities as well as risks. Unless Scotland grasps the opportunities that are ahead of us now, we will lose them to other countries. Those opportunities come not from having more of the same but from speeding the transition—from making the break with the fossil fuel economy that we have depended on for far too long.
Already, we are at risk of losing out to other countries on jobs that will emerge from oil and gas decommissioning. If those countries develop the skills, the expertise and the reputation for undertaking that work, we will miss out when that work increases in scale.
You must draw to a close.
Unless we make that change—unless we make that transition urgently—we will risk missing out, just as we did on industries such as wind power. The opportunity for us is to move faster in making the transition. That is where the opportunities are not just for a better and stronger economy but for a fairer and more socially just economy in the future that supports the public services that so many of us believe in.
You must close, Mr Harvie.
Those are the opportunities that the Green Party will present in the next election and I look forward immensely to debating them with all the parties across the chamber.
Thank you, Mr Harvie.
I also wish all members a happy new year but apologise for starting on a slightly negative note by saying that, after the next two speakers, I am afraid that I will have to restrict all members to five-minute speeches. I call Clare Adamson to be followed by Iain Gray, with speeches of a maximum of six minutes.
15:12
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I reciprocate the new year goodwill expressed by my fellow members across the chamber.
In her address to Scotland, the First Minister emphasised that 2016 will be another big and important year for Scotland and I heartily agree. I am delighted that we have heard a vision today from the First Minister of a Scotland that is moving forward, a Scotland that is growing in confidence, and a Scotland that is governed in complete recognition of and belief in our country’s limitless potential.
The plans are about harnessing our economic potential; more important, they are about harnessing the potential of the people of Scotland and enabling them to participate and succeed in a Scotland that embraces innovation and a can-do attitude for our future. We should make no mistake—there are challenges ahead, especially while we governed from Westminster by an austerity ideology. As deputy convener of the Welfare Reform Committee, I am only too well aware of the damage that welfare reform is doing to our communities and the growing inequality that it promotes.
However, we also have great opportunities ahead. As a former information technology professional, I trust that members will let me reflect on the opportunities within my own previous area of work. I am delighted that there was a commitment in the budget to invest in excess of £345 million to support research innovation across Scotland’s universities, businesses and enterprise agencies—aligning their approaches, pooling funding and simplifying access to support. I also welcome the increase in digital strategy spend to £130 million in 2016-17, as part of a package of measures to bolster the culture of innovation and connectivity across Scotland’s homes, businesses and universities. I further welcome the fact that the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council will provide £120 million to eight innovation centres, thereby bringing together universities, research institutes and businesses to support world-class research in big data, digital health, industrial biotechnology, sensor technology, construction, stratified medicine, aquaculture and oil and gas.
There has been discussion this afternoon about the Opposition’s response to what the Government has presented as its record to date, but it is interesting to look at how industry views the budget. ScotlandIS responded to the budget a few weeks ago in an article on its website by Steven McGinty. It recognised that Mr Swinney highlighted that the Scottish budget will continue to fall year on year leading up to 2020, that it will have fallen by 12.5 per cent in real terms since 2010, and that the figures paint a very bleak picture for Scotland’s public finances. However, ScotlandIS goes on to recognise that, even with the pressure on public funds, the Scottish Government has given a clear commitment to digital. It recognises the steps that the Government has taken to extend digital applications in public services; to increase the use of shared services; to secure further value from procurement developments; and to ensure effective use of assets and reduce overlap in public services. It recognises that the digital agenda will produce savings and improve the quality of our services.
ScotlandIS goes on to recognise the Government’s main initiatives, which include £100 million to improve broadband services as part of the £400 million digital Scotland superfast broadband programme; the establishment of the alpha fund to help to improve the efficiency and quality of digital public services; and the provision of support to the digital transformation service to develop digital public services from a user perspective and to realise the benefits of digital technology.
The article ends by stating:
“the digital sector needs to focus on addressing the challenges highlighted in the Budget. This includes providing creative, efficient, technological solutions that support the everyday needs of both central and local government.”
The response from ScotlandIS exemplifies the can-do attitude of the IT industry in Scotland to which we all aspire.
I commend the Government’s vision in the areas that it already supports. For example, it supports Equate Scotland in making a positive difference for women in science, engineering, technology and the built environment. The Government’s support is based on a vision of tackling inequality at its very heart.
I also commend the Government’s support for CodeClan, which aspires to be a world-class coding academy that creates a new generation of software developers and plays a leading role in accelerating Scotland’s progress in building a high-performance digital economy. It is new and innovative, and it is supported by the Government and Skills Development Scotland.
I highlight the work of Edge Testing, which is based in my area of central Scotland. Last year, during apprenticeship week, I had the pleasure of visiting the company to meet the chief executive, Brian Ferrie, and his trainees and staff. As well as recruiting highly skilled graduates, Edge Testing recruits from local communities and student cohorts, and it has developed a training programme in conjunction with Skills Development Scotland in which it trains candidates in a highly regarded and highly valued aspect of the computing industry.
The member must draw to a close, please.
I believe that the digital economy is one of the ways in which Scotland can grow its economy. In doing so, we can build those highly skilled, highly valued jobs, and this Government has the vision to see that through.
15:18
The title of today’s debate is certainly wide ranging, but Patrick Harvie is right to say that there are interlinking themes. If there is one area of public policy that binds the various elements in the title together, it is education.
Education is arguably the oldest of the public services, and it is certainly one of the biggest in terms of budget; I would contend that it is also the most important. If there is a silver bullet that can slay the scandal of inequality, it is education. If there is a master key to create economic growth and greater prosperity, it is to increase the quality of education, to raise the level of skills in the workforce and to support more academic research in our universities.
It is no wonder, then, that all parties in the chamber claim to have education at the heart of their programmes, and that, when the First Minister says that she wishes to be judged on her record, we should look first at her Government’s record on education. In truth, that record does not bear much examination.
There are almost 4,500 fewer teachers in our schools and 140,000 fewer students in our colleges, and student support for those who remain has been declared “not fit for purpose” by NUS Scotland. We have bigger class sizes in schools, though the Government promised smaller. Student debt has doubled, though the Government promised to abolish it altogether. There are fewer level 3 and 4 apprenticeships than we had 10 years ago. Standards in literacy and numeracy are falling, and the attainment gap between the rich and the rest is as bad as ever. If that is a strong foundation, I would hate to see a shaky one.
This Government has broken every promise it has ever made on schools or colleges. A whole cohort of young Scots had been through their entire primary school careers before this Government stirred itself to try and address the attainment gap, and it is still spectacularly missing the target.
Just before Christmas, Kezia Dugdale described a visit that I made with her to a shared campus school in Renfrewshire. The two schools share the same building, the same dining hall and the same gym and they have pupils from the same streets, but one school gets attainment challenge funding and the other does not. That is nonsensical. In my East Lothian constituency, not a single school receives a single penny of extra funding to close the attainment gap, yet in my county one child in five lives in poverty. Where is the support and help for them? That cannot be right.
The truth is that, if a Government wishes to will the end of improving education, it has to will the means as well. It cannot claim to be prioritising education, as this Government does, and at the same time target education budgets for repeated real-terms cuts, as this Government is doing. It cannot claim to have a passion to close the attainment gap and then allocate to that task one tenth of the resource that it is prepared to use to cut the cost of a plane ticket.
That is why Scottish Labour is committed to raising the top level of taxation as soon as that power is available to us and using the resources for fair start funding, following every pupil from a poorer family so that almost every primary school and many nurseries, too, would have a fund—controlled by the headteacher—to implement real action to close the gap.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I am about to finish.
I said that my schools receive not one penny from the First Minister’s attainment fund. They would receive almost £900,000 from Labour’s fair start funding. That is putting your money where your mouth is. A school such as Dunbar primary could have a fund of perhaps £90,000 per year. It already runs the Dunbar mile, one of Scotland’s fastest growing science festivals and a reading programme that involves the whole community. That is the kind of imagination and innovation that we should be backing up with resources in every single part of Scotland. Instead, from this Government, in this year’s budget, we have nothing but more cuts for schools and colleges.
Final minute.
In her opening speech, the First Minister hailed the OECD report. It says that our schools are above average, but it also says that the rest of the world is catching up and that the attainment gap is growing. The First Minister may be satisfied with the damnation of such faint praise, but that vision is not good enough for us or for Scotland. Every child who is left behind shames us all, limits our economic prospects and entrenches inequality for another generation.
Will you draw to a close, please?
The new powers that are coming to this Parliament mean that we can ask those with most to pay a little more and then invest that in schools and colleges, in skills and in closing that gap. We need not warm words or empty promises but real transformational change for a better future for the next generation.
I call Mark McDonald, to be followed by Michael McMahon. Speeches of five minutes, please.
15:24
Over the festive season, we spend time with family and friends, reflecting on the year gone by and looking ahead to the year to come. As I spent time in the company of family and friends, I was struck not only by the challenges that many in our communities are facing but by the distance that we have travelled in some areas and the opportunities that exist to go further.
Kezia Dugdale mentioned the oil industry in her speech. Through family and friends, I have experience of the pressures that many in the industry are facing. The Scottish Government has established the jobs task force, and I think that it is doing extremely important work both in trying to ensure continued employment for individuals and in seeking alternative employment for those who are made redundant.
Patrick Harvie mentioned green energy in his speech. There are many transferable skills that I think the green energy sector could take advantage of. One of the difficulties that the sector faces is the policy approach that is being taken by the UK Government, which seems hell-bent on throttling the renewables sector rather than invigorating it.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I have only five minutes.
I have spoken to individuals who act as unpaid carers in our society by looking after loved ones. Those carers do us all a great service in the work that they do. However, we know that it is a struggle for many of them to get by, which is why the First Minister’s announcement that unpaid carers will receive a boost to the carers allowance when the power to do that is in this Parliament’s possession was welcome. I think that carers deserve such an increase. It is something that UK Governments of many shades have failed to provide in the past, and I welcome the commitment to this Parliament doing something about that when it has the opportunity to do so.
There will undoubtedly be opportunities from the new powers that will come to the Scottish Parliament. Previously in the chamber, I have spoken of my own experiences of the welfare system. For example, there is the soul-destroying experience for a parent of filling out their child’s disability living allowance form, giving more than 40 pages of answers to explain their child’s limitations and the things that they are incapable of. That is an extremely difficult experience for many families. Are there ways in which we could provide in Scotland a system for initial application and renewal that would be less onerous and less emotionally distressing for individuals?
Education is absolutely at the forefront of my concerns as a parent, not just for my own children and the children who go to school with them but for the children who live in my constituency. I see two sides of the coin: education in the mainstream environment and education for children with additional support needs. However, I am fully behind the Government’s plans to improve attainment in our schools, first and foremost.
In my constituency, there is a great disparity between schools that are located in what we could call communities of plenty and those that are contained in communities of poverty. We used to be able to use the uptake of free school meals as a barometer of the level of social deprivation in schools in our constituencies. One school in my constituency had a 65 per cent entitlement rate for free school meals, but another had a 0.2 per cent entitlement rate. That showed the great disparity that was present.
The school with the 65 per cent entitlement rate has achieved great things in terms of attainment. It has twice won the city council’s Baillie John Porter award for educational performance and attainment. The interesting thing about that school is that it is one that the Labour Party tried to close. The school is Bramble Brae primary in Northfield, which serves a community of deprivation and has done great things. However, the Labour council attempted to close it, which became a focal point of the by-election that led to my being returned to the Parliament following the sad passing of our friend and colleague Brian Adam. It was the campaigning efforts of parents in the community that led the Labour council to change its plans and remove the proposal for closure.
You must draw to a close.
In my constituency, I will always stand up for educational advancement. I hope that we can rely on local authorities, particularly Labour-led ones, to back us in that in terms of the local delivery that they are responsible for.
I must reiterate that five minutes is the maximum for speeches.
15:29
I thank the Scottish Government for holding this important debate right at the start of the new year. I also warmly welcome the comments that the First Minister made about establishing education as a priority. It certainly came as no surprise to me that, in the final few weeks of 2015, after eight years of Scottish National Party Government, the Government’s poverty adviser Naomi Eisenstadt indicated that the populist policy agenda of the SNP was failing to tackle the inequalities that exist in Scotland.
Therefore, it is not before time that the posturing gives way to proper progressive planning, because no amount of talking about progressive, anti-austerity policies can disguise the fact that the SNP Government has redistributed public resources towards the better-off. It is no wonder that Ruth Davidson is happier to concentrate on changing the Opposition than on changing the Government. As the late David McLetchie said, the next best thing to having a Tory Government is the SNP Government doing what the Tories want.
With educational attainment slipping, inequality of opportunity in education stubbornly entrenched, hospital performance levels even breaking the laws set by the Scottish Government, and escalating levels of homelessness, fuel poverty and waiting lists indicating the scale of the housing crisis in Scotland, it is really not before time for us to get a vision for schools, hospitals, housing and local government that is genuinely progressive.
In making those points, I recognise that it is not good enough for me to merely criticise the Scottish Government’s approach. That is why, when we debated housing before the turn of the year, I stated clearly that Labour accepted that in our most recent period in office we did not build houses to a level that met need at that time. I recognised that although our record was not bad, it was not good enough, and that was why we accepted the recommendation of the housing sector that at least 12,500 affordable homes needed to be built each year in order for us to seriously combat the crisis that we face. It is a crisis, and no amount of denial will change that, so I am sorry that the Scottish Government’s commitment on the issue falls short of what the housing sector says is needed and that it still stubbornly refuses to accept that there is a housing crisis. However, it is not enough for Labour members just to say that—we have to show that what we will do is what is needed.
That is why I am so pleased that Kezia Dugdale kicked off the new year by focusing on housing and put some meat on the bones of our commitment to first-time buyers when she outlined how we would do more to help the aspirational young home owners in Scotland who are finding it so hard to make the initial move on to the property ladder. More needs to be done to create greater availability of social housing and protection for private renters, and we will spell out how we think that that should be done in due course.
Building enough homes is fundamental to our country’s social wellbeing and economic success. Given that the number of new homes that are being built in Scotland is still well down on 2007 levels, that intensifies the housing pressures that existed even before the recession. If we can build 12,500 affordable homes and double that figure to at least 25,000 by adding greater levels of private sector building, we can start to get to the levels of house building that we need for our young people and our growing families.
Whatever we deliver for people should have a strong evidence base that shows that it will respond to need and not just pander to preconceived and ill-informed populist opinion. All Governments in recent history have been rhetorically committed to localism and preventative spend, but we are far from delivering either of those in practice. Large inequalities of income and wealth scar our society, but it is not enough just to recognise that, wring our hands and point the finger of blame at someone else. If we have the power and ability to do more to address that inequality, we should do more. If not, we are as culpable as those whom we seek to blame.
We must commit to reducing inequalities of income and opportunity through a public service agenda that, for once, truly merits the label of being radical and reforming. That is what Labour intends to lay out in 2016, and I invite the SNP Government to follow our lead.
15:34
I wish a happy new year to all.
In a recent technology, entertainment and design—TED—talk, the topic was vision. The questions that were asked to stimulate debate were:
“What is your vision for a (nearly) perfect society?
If you could make your own vision of humanity, what would it look like?
What type of economic system, social structure, and government, as well as their roles would you propose?
What will humanity be like?
What will our neighborhoods look like?
Education, infrastructure, anything really.
Here’s the hard part, how do you (we) achieve this vision?”
The answer to those fundamental questions is will—personal will and, in terms of this debate and this nation, political will.
I know personally what I want for the future of my kids, my friends, my family, my constituency and my nation. I want a vision that invests in people and, by extension, in its public services. I want a vision that embraces the fundamentals in life: good health, safety and security, good nutrition, good education, opportunities for all and equality.
Let us start with health. What vision do we have for health? A health service that is free at the point of need from the cradle to the grave. The First Minister has outlined her plans for making that kind of universal national health service.
What about humanity and equality? We need a vision that reacts to help and protect people in nations that are affected by climate change or tragedy with the same vigour as the reaction to worldwide humanitarian crises such as the recent and on-going refugee situation and nations being ravaged by war.
We need to be a nation that believes in human rights and that is a safe place in which to live and grow. We are starting at a very good point, with a 41-year low in crime making our communities safer. We need to be a nation in which there is zero tolerance of discrimination and domestic violence and that provides the best support and legislation for any man, woman, girl or boy who becomes, or is at risk of becoming, a victim. We need to be a nation that tackles human trafficking and that works with global partners to stop the trafficking.
We need an education system that gives young people the ability to learn not just by rote but by thinking critically with the ability to see the world in which they live and explore all the possibilities.
We need 1,140 hours of childcare to give our youngest the best start in life and their parents the best chance of learning and working. That is directly tackling not just financial poverty but poverty of opportunity.
How about our education system? We need higher and further education that is based not on the ability to pay but on the ability to learn. Imagine if the cure for cancer was locked inside the head of a young person who could not afford to go to university.
What about a social security system that means just that? In a person’s time of need, we will not call them a skiver or a drain on the system but will give them hope—not a handout but a hand-up; not demonisation but actualisation. Whether people have a disability or a long-term condition or just find themselves victims of life, they will have the support to get well or live life in comfort within a society that cares. When and if they are ready to go back to work, we will retrain them and they will have the correct support to do so.
Young people will have access to high-quality training opportunities or apprenticeships to open up the jobs market and career paths that help them to realise their potential to become the public servants of the future; the entrepreneurs, innovators and researchers of the future; the business builders; and, just as important, the designers, engineers and infrastructure builders that we need to build and rebuild our nation.
Vision is foresight, and this Government has had the foresight to protect our public services when others are going in a different direction. Investment in public services is a direct investment in our people. In my view, continued commitment to that ideal builds a society that values every single one of us—woman, man, girl and boy.
I ask again:
“What is your vision for a (nearly) perfect society?
If you could make your own vision of humanity, what would it look like?
What type of economic system, social structure, and government, as well as their roles would you propose?
What will humanity be like?
What will our neighborhoods look like?
Education, infrastructure, anything really.
Here’s the hard part, how do you (we) achieve this vision?”
I believe that, with the political and personal will, this Government will overcome the hard parts and achieve the vision that we all desire. I believe that the SNP is the only party that will deliver that vision.
15:39
I wish everyone in the chamber and beyond a happy new year.
I was interested to hear Ms Dugdale’s speech. She spent nine and a half minutes castigating the Government and all of 30 seconds trying to put forward Labour’s vision for the forthcoming election. I am so glad that I belong to a political party that takes a much more positive view in putting forward its policies.
The First Minister talked about the progress that has been made; I will concentrate on progress in my city and my constituency over the past four and a half years. In Aberdeen, Government has invested in hydrogen technology. An emergency care centre has been constructed on the Aberdeen royal infirmary site. Construction of the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which was first envisaged in 1948, has begun.
More is to come. There is investment in innovation centres, including the oil and gas innovation centre in my city. A new women’s hospital and a cancer care centre are being built in Aberdeen and improvements are being made to the Aberdeen to Inverness rail line, which will be greatly appreciated.
To grow Scotland’s economy, there has been investment in infrastructure in Aberdeen and elsewhere, the small business bonus scheme has been used to great effect by small companies across the country, and moneys have been used to support research and innovation.
Members mentioned the oil and gas sector. The news that production rose last year is welcome. When she welcomed that news, Deirdre Michie, the chief executive of Oil & Gas UK, took the opportunity to reiterate the call for immediate action by the UK Government to drive investment in the future of the North Sea. I agree with Deirdre Michie. I call on the chancellor to heed the SNP’s long-standing shout-out and introduce exploration incentives in the North Sea, to protect jobs and sustain an industry that is vital for the north-east and beyond.
We have seen the progress that has been made by the Scottish Government over the piece, but we have also seen the Scottish Government having to mitigate the worst of Westminster’s austerity measures. This Government established the Scottish welfare fund, with £38 million of investment to help the poorest people in our society. There has been investment of £343 million to protect vulnerable households from increased council tax liabilities through the council tax reduction scheme, and investment of £35 million to mitigate in full the impact of the bedroom tax and ensure that no one in Scotland pays that unfair tax.
We have maintained free higher education and funding for free prescriptions and eye checks. Under this Government, we still have free concessionary travel for older people and disabled younger people and, of course, free personal and nursing care is still provided in Scotland.
Despite all the austerity measures that the Westminster Government has put in place, the Scottish Government has proven that it will do all that it can do to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. I hope that we can continue to ensure that those who are most at risk are protected. I am sure that a future SNP Government will do so. If that is to happen, we must retain the strong economy that has been achieved under this Government. Long may that continue.
15:44
Happy new year to you, Presiding Officer, and to colleagues across the chamber. I cannot help but feel that there is something otherworldly or slightly surreal about our debate—or at least in the First Minister and SNP back benchers’ approach to it.
The debate is entitled “Supporting public services”. Across our country, the future for public services is very much on people’s minds. Public servants and elected representatives are struggling with impossible decisions over which public services to cut. That does not, at least this afternoon, seem to include SNP MSPs and ministers, but it most certainly includes our local councillors and local government officials. The grim reality that faces people—usually the most vulnerable people—in many communities is that they will lose support and they will be charged more for the services that they require. However, I have not heard about any of that in the contributions from SNP members.
Labour and the SNP can make common cause in this Parliament in opposing George Osborne’s austerity. We agree on the damage that those UK Government decisions will have on our economy and our society, but we differ on what we then do about that. John Swinney spent most of his budget speech just before the Christmas recess telling us how wrong the Conservative chancellor was in his approach to the economy and to public services. He then copied or echoed virtually every one of those Conservative Government budget decisions. I concede that we welcomed some announcements—in fact, we called for them. Indeed, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has agreed to meet Labour demands to protect health spending and to allocate any ring-fenced increase to health and social care. That is the one crumb of comfort for those who rely on local care services in a budget that will be incredibly painful for those who receive most of their support locally.
How can the First Minister, Mr Swinney or their back-bench supporters talk about protecting public services when Mr Swinney has cut hundreds of millions of pounds from local authority budgets? That is more than 5 per cent in revenue terms and 7 per cent if cuts to the capital budget are added to the mix. We will all feel that. Even those with a steady job and a secure income will feel it through the holes in the roads, the loss of lollipop crossing attendants, extra charges for our children’s music lessons and increased costs when using the local swimming pool.
As is always the case in such situations, those who need our support most will feel John Swinney’s cuts the most. Young people with additional needs will lose learning support, care centres for people with learning difficulties will no longer open and garden assistance for older people will be removed.
We are only too painfully aware of who will suffer most from the Swinney cuts: single-parent families, disabled people—those on the lowest incomes. We are only too painfully aware of who will suffer most from the Swinney cuts because they are already suffering from his cuts to local government.
In some ways we should not be surprised by the SNP budget. The cabinet secretary’s record over the past eight years has been to take the cuts handed to him by George Osborne and then to double them for Scottish local government—a 3 per cent real-terms cut for him and a 6 per cent real-terms cut for our local councillors. Those are not my conclusions but the findings of the Scottish Parliament’s very own independent researchers.
I genuinely do not understand the contradiction between a Scottish Government constantly arguing for more powers to protect the Scottish people against Conservative austerity and that same SNP Government steadfastly and point-blank refusing to use any of the vast powers at its disposal to do exactly that.
In fact, there is an even greater contradiction in the SNP’s whole approach to devolution and local government. John Swinney has not only taken hundreds of millions of pounds straight out of local public services, but has stripped our locally elected representatives of any power to do anything about it. This same cabinet secretary and the same SNP Government, which sound off at every opportunity about the importance of securing full fiscal autonomy to ensure the democratic accountability of the Scottish Parliament, have removed all traces of fiscal authority or responsibility or any remnant of independent local revenue raising from our local government colleagues.
The SNP Government constantly demands more powers for itself but, with its centralising agenda, it has stripped our local councillors of the ability to defend their communities. John Swinney’s rhetoric is full of defiance for George Osborne’s austerity, but his record is to hide behind it. George Osborne does not set the budget for local authorities; John Swinney does. These are not local authority cuts or George Osborne’s cuts; they are John Swinney’s cuts.
15:49
The First Minister and other colleagues have outlined extensively and eloquently the progress that has been made in Scotland across our public services, whether on the international status of our universities, the additional young people who stay on at school, the doubling of apprenticeships or the mitigation of Westminster’s welfare cuts, such as the bedroom tax, at the same time as the NHS budget, which is now almost £13 billion, has been protected and an additional £250 million has been provided this year in aid of the integration of health and social care.
Those achievements are valuable in themselves, of course, but to evaluate them properly, we must see them in the context of the cuts to the Scottish Government’s grant from Westminster since 2010. The overall budget cut in Scotland has been 9 per cent, and the capital budget has been slashed by 25 per cent. It is against the background of that cut that we should judge the Government’s achievements in, for example, maintaining the NHS and, at the same time, expanding early-years provision and apprenticeships and countering the recession by transferring revenue spending to capital, which is one the clearest ways to stimulate economic activity.
The infrastructure spend includes spend on new schools and hospitals, as has been said, and, crucially, spend on a new Forth crossing, which previous Governments shied away from building. I am very pleased that that commitment to infrastructure investment is going forward, particularly the commitment to build 50,000 new affordable homes by 2020 on top of the target to build 30,000 affordable homes, which has already been achieved.
Those achievements in infrastructure investment must be seen in the context of the cuts and, indeed, the Scottish Government’s additional burden as a specific result of the Westminster welfare cuts, which are in addition to those that have already been outlined to the Scottish Government. Those are cuts to reserved spending that affect vulnerable people in Scotland, but the money to mitigate them comes from the Scottish budget. For example, there is £38 million from the Scottish welfare fund, £343 million to protect against cuts to council tax benefits, and £35 million for the bedroom tax. Strictly speaking, we do not have that money, but quite rightly we have found it from devolved budgets. We must see the achievements in that particular context.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to universal benefits, which is radical, because it underpins social cohesion and knits us together as a society. Those who benefit most are not the well-off; they are average earners and hard-pressed families, as well as the poor, of course. Free university tuition, nursery places, personal care for the elderly, school meals for the youngest pupils, prescriptions and eye checks all deliver and are based on the principles that underpin the NHS, which is our most popular universal public service.
It is sad that those things are continually attacked by ideologues in the right-wing press and, sadly, by politicians and commentators who should know better but have swallowed the attacks on universal benefits. I draw their attention to a paper entitled “The Case for Universalism”, which was published by the Jimmy Reid Foundation a number of years ago. The writers of that paper included Paul Spicker, professor of public policy at the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, whose recent evidence to the Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee made an impression on all who heard it. The writers pointed out that universalism is not a something-for-nothing approach; it is a something-for-something approach, which is a core value of not just the Scottish Government, but the Scottish people. Universalism as opposed to selectivity is desirable because
“selectivity increases social and economic inequality and diminishes rather than enhances the status of the poor”.
Selectivity demonstrates what we euphemistically call “targeting”.
Draw to a close, please.
Selectivity stigmatises the poor, and it does not have any place in Scotland.
15:54
Despite the title of the debate, few members so far have made much reference to the economy, but a strong economy is the key to improving public services and quality of life. It is only by having a strong economy and a vibrant tax base that we can raise the revenues that we need to pay for the quality public services that we all want to see. That will become increasingly important in the years to come as the Parliament acquires greater tax powers and we see a closer link between the money that Parliament spends and the underlying strength of the Scottish economy and the tax base.
The advantage that we in Scotland have through being part of the UK was made clear in a report that was issued shortly before Christmas by the Centre for Economics and Business Research. According to that report, the UK is set to become the best-performing economy in western Europe in 2016 and is likely to overtake Germany and Japan as a global economic leader in the 2030s. That is all good news but there was a word of warning, in that the possibility of Scotland leaving the UK could hurt the UK’s economic growth.
The central message of the CEBR report is testament to the success of the economic plan that is being pursued by the current UK Government and the chancellor’s plans for deficit reduction. We should not forget that those plans were vigorously opposed by other parties in the chamber and are still being opposed, if we go by what we heard from Mr Macintosh earlier, when he talked about the damage that the chancellor is doing to the economy. If that is Mr Macintosh’s definition of damage, I would hate to see how he would define economic progress. On the basis of the CEBR report and many others, the chancellor’s plans are delivering success.
Will the member take an intervention?
As I mentioned Mr Macintosh, I will give way to him.
Does Mr Fraser believe that the austerity budget that the Conservatives have pursued for the past five years has achieved better growth than we would have seen if they had gone for an interventionist and expansionist budget?
The member does not have to listen to me, but I suggest that he listens to the economic experts in the International Monetary Fund—which produced a report in December that praised the decisions taken by the chancellor and the growth in the UK economy—and to the CEBR. Maybe Mr Macintosh has better experts in his party whom he can quote in support of his arguments, but I have yet to hear them.
Earlier, the First Minister reminded us that the Scottish Government has an ambition to reduce inequality. According to the Scottish Government’s own analysis, and contrary to the rhetoric that we often hear in the chamber, income inequality has not been increasing in Scotland. Indeed, over the past decade, we have seen a small reduction in income inequality according to official statistics.
However, if income inequality is a concern for the SNP, it has the power to do something about it. The assessment of the SNP’s policies by the First Minister’s own poverty tsar, Naomi Eisenstadt, is a damning one. She told the First Minister last year that flagship SNP policies on free university education and providing pensioner benefits at the cost of young families risk diverting public resources to the better-off at the expense of people who are enduring severe deprivation.
Those are areas where the Scottish Government does not need new powers. It already has powers. It is already making choices that, in the view of its own poverty adviser, are going in the wrong direction. It is time that the SNP stopped lecturing the rest of us about equality when its own measures might be contributing to the problem.
For our part, the Scottish Conservatives believe that the key to tackling inequality is to provide opportunity for all. Here I agree with Iain Gray that having a world-class education system for every child in Scotland has to be the priority. Those who come from better-off backgrounds always have a choice in education. They have always been able to buy houses in the catchment areas of the better schools. They have always been able to buy additional tuition or, if they could afford it, to opt out of the state system altogether and buy independent schooling. Those alternatives have not been available to those who come from poorer backgrounds, so improving state education for all must be a priority for the Government.
Today, the Scottish Conservatives published a set of policy proposals on how we can make the school system better for all our pupils, particularly those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. There are simple solutions, such as putting headteachers properly in charge of budgets and school management, concrete proposals on improving literacy and numeracy, on which our record in Scotland is nowhere near good enough, and ensuring that new standards at primary 1, 4 and 7 fit into international methodologies to allow a proper comparison with other countries. Those are all practical policies that could be implemented now, which would particularly benefit those who come from poorer backgrounds and help those who get left behind.
As we start a new year, let us hear less about the powers that we do not have and more about the powers that we already have and could use to tackle inequality, to grow the economy and to deliver better-quality public services.
16:00
In an election year, it is not likely that this chamber will find much to unite it. That much has been clear this afternoon and I suspect that it will remain clear for the next 11 weeks and one day, until dissolution. However, one thing to which I think every politician can assent is that the preference of the people—in a democracy at any rate—must be heeded. That preference may change from election to election, or even from referendum to referendum, but it is the basic and best guide as to what we as politicians should be doing and delivering.
Therefore, I was a little surprised to read in The Herald at new year the view of the former Lib Dem MP for Argyll and Bute Alan Reid, who will contest the Scottish Parliament seat, that the wheels are about to come off the SNP and that voters will at last “see through” the party of which I have been a member for 40 years. Leaving aside the fact that the Lib Dems now have fewer wheels than a monocycle, such contempt for what Scottish voters are actually saying and doing is breathtaking.
The First Minister alluded to such anti-democratic sentiment in her new year message, drawing attention to the commentators and others who want Scotland to believe that some Svengali-style deceit has resulted in the present electoral strength of the SNP and who urge Scots to awake from their state of enforced slumber and to vote for someone—indeed, anyone—who is not a nationalist.
It is always tempting to believe that one’s opponents are tricksters and hucksters. I can remember the days when this party took that view of Labour and the Lib Dems in coalition and, to quote Lord Braxfield, “muckle guid” it did us. Voters do not usually choose Governments and their futures because of manufactured fear, visceral dislike or thwarted entitlement; they prefer to make positive choices. It was a positive vision that propelled the SNP into government in 2007; it was a positive record, team and vision that produced an SNP landslide in 2011; and it was a positive, inclusive vision that we heard today from the Scottish Government as it looks forward.
That positive vision, of public services supported and reformed, education continuing to improve, admittedly from a high and positive base—this is a country of educational achievement and progress at every level and no one should forget or wilfully misrepresent that—the health service protected, a start made on fair taxation and equality enshrined and opportunity renewed, is what Scotland wants to hear. As the First Minister said this afternoon, we need to hear that message of great ambition in a thriving debate.
Scotland is in optimistic mood. Although I remain of the belief that it will take full independence to realise Scotland’s full potential, we can make use of the growing powers of the Parliament to achieve some of those aims and to realise some of that vision.
We can renew and reform our country, our democracy and even the proceedings of this Parliament in ways that meet Scotland’s demands for a more participative way of working, engaging the energies and the talents of our fellow citizens. However, to do so we will need to ensure that we encourage and embed subsidiarity and localism wherever possible. Subsidiarity and localism are particularly important in rural and island Scotland, in places such as my own constituency of Argyll and Bute. Subsidiarity and localism are in the DNA of the SNP; they were the petrol that drove the engine of the referendum. They can revitalise much of Scotland, as progress with land reform and community purchase is already demonstrating. However, we need to get them embedded further and deeper into our society, perhaps into local authorities.
I will not rehearse the inability of, say, Argyll and Bute Council to recognise changed times and the thirst for involvement. The saga of Castle Toward and the present inappropriate and mishandled “service choices” consultation give evidence of something severely wrong. However, there is something wrong not just there but in much better-led and better-managed authorities, because, as is widely recognised, most Scottish local authorities are too big to serve their electors properly and are too distant to be of utility to their communities. Inevitably, one size will not fit all. It may be that city regions are the right way forward for the cities, but we need more focused and more effective smaller authorities with more councillors who are properly resourced and rewarded. Island communities in particular, which will benefit from the devolution of the Crown Estate, can and should be much more locally responsive and responsible. That need not cost more, because we can secure greater economy and effectiveness from reimagining and redesigning many of the services that are now being delivered—such redesign is long overdue.
The party best placed to respond to the desire awakened across Scotland by the referendum experience and the demand for greater involvement and participation in democracy is the SNP. Those are a core part of our vision of Scotland. Allied with the vision outlined by the First Minister today, it opens up the prospect of a dynamic future, in which the great talents, powerful ambitions and boundless energy of those who live in this country can be put to work for all of us.
16:05
The end of 2015 saw the Paris climate talks, which focused on the challenge of reducing our emissions to avert dangerous climate change. It is absolutely right that they did so, because it is the world’s poorest communities and citizens who are bearing the brunt of climate change. We need to act to reduce our emissions, whether in energy and heat, housing and transport or how we use land. The past couple of weeks have shown us that we also need to make our infrastructure fit for the future and that there are challenges in Scotland in that regard. We must not only reduce our emissions but make our infrastructure more resilient.
In the short space of time since the Parliament was established, our electricity supply has been transformed, with a huge increase in the development of renewables. However, there has not been the Scottish manufacturing that we had hoped for; nor have the benefits—the investment and profits—gone directly to communities. Further, it is predominantly wind that has been developed, and not the range of possibilities that now exist. In marine developments in particular, there has not been the speed or scale that were hoped for, which means that we are missing out on jobs and export opportunities.
In this session of Parliament, we have seen the closure of coal-fired power stations—Longannet will close in a few weeks’ time—and the start of big changes in oil and gas. We cannot afford to be complacent. We need a plan for transferable skills and investment in the future to help not just our companies but our communities to be resilient. We need a plan for transition—it needs to be a just transition for communities, and for workers and skills. A key part of that transition must be to make our housing and transport fit for the future.
As members have mentioned, a third of households in Scotland live in fuel poverty. Everyone knows that there is no chance of eliminating fuel poverty in time for the Scottish Government’s target next year. It is a scandal that, every year, 4,500 people die preventable and premature deaths. Those are people on low incomes—in work or on benefits—who cannot afford to heat their homes. Such people are often stuck in housing that is not just expensive to heat; they also face rising rents. That is why we need investment in energy efficiency, action on fairer rents and a whole new generation of affordable rented housing.
We need to ensure that our houses are fit for the future, because 80 per cent of existing houses will still be there in 2050—they have already been built. We need a warm homes act so that we provide a focus for investment in energy efficiency. We also need a new framework to transform how we heat our homes in future.
We are missing opportunities for cleaner, environmentally friendly technologies that our Scottish companies are developing and exporting abroad. That should not be the case. We need to ensure that local authorities are geared up and able to invest in the technology. We need co-operatives in solar and community heat so that we make the most of those new opportunities. We need to get ahead of the game.
I was very disappointed to hear the First Minister talk once again about her flagship policy to cut air passenger duty, which ignores the emissions impact of increased flights. The Deputy First Minister has left the chamber, but I am sure that he would want to tell us that it also creates a big hole in the Scottish budget.
We know that the budget that we are scrutinising is under unprecedented pressure, which means that our investment in infrastructure for low carbon and electric vehicles needs to be protected. We need to make the most of the opportunities. We need to tackle air quality and ensure that we promote health and active lifestyles through transport investment in electric vehicles and new types of travel, but particularly in low emission zones and promoting walking and cycling. There is much more that could be done; it is not all expensive, but it requires joint work by the Scottish Government and local authorities.
The past few weeks have exposed the vulnerability of our transport infrastructure in Scotland. I am talking about not just the Forth road bridge but the lack of resilience and capacity that has been exposed in our rail network. We have seen the challenge of bridges and roads being damaged or swept away by flooding. We need better public transport that is more affordable and reliable for passengers.
When we bring that together with low carbon investment and new models of investment through co-operatives, we see that there are opportunities for community investment, job creation and economic prosperity that we are not seizing. In the next session of the Scottish Parliament, we need to focus on those opportunities, think about investment and deliver progress on climate change and climate justice.
16:10
At the beginning of my speech, I would like to wish those who I have not yet managed to speak to a happy and healthy 2016, particularly those of my colleagues who have decided to retire from the Scottish Parliament—I thank them all for their contribution to the political life of Scotland.
The rest of us will submit ourselves to the test of the people in May. I, for one, am relishing the contest of the Scottish general election for three good reasons. First, I love campaigning and, as any SNP activist will confirm, I have a never-ending appetite to knock on the next door in an effort to engage with yet another constituent.
Secondly, I am looking forward to prosecuting the argument that, despite an incredibly challenging financial backdrop, the SNP Government has a quite remarkable record of achievement in government. I also believe that, without a shadow of a doubt, we have in Nicola Sturgeon the most accomplished leader in Scotland and the best team to take Scotland forward.
The third reason is that, as was laid out clearly by the First Minister today, the SNP has a vision for how we will go about continuing to transform Scotland over the lifetime of the next session of Parliament.
In contrast, we will face an Opposition campaign, particularly from Labour, with one simplistic slogan: #SNPbad. Kezia Dugdale’s speech could have been shortened to that key phrase. Instead, we had nine minutes and 20 seconds of “SNP bad” followed by 10 seconds of Labour policy before it went back to “SNP bad” for the rest. That will suit the SNP just fine. We will leave the negative campaign tactics to the Opposition while we get on with the job of talking about Scotland’s potential and our aspiration to take Scotland forward and, despite the undoubted challenges that lie ahead, providing a positive message of hope for the future.
The title of today’s debate is “Supporting Public Services, Tackling Inequality and Growing Scotland’s Economy”. On the theme of growing Scotland’s economy, it is hard to find a better example of the real, practical help that the SNP Government has provided to small businesses than the small business bonus scheme. Figures for 2014-15 show that the number of businesses that are benefiting from the scheme by having their rates either reduced or removed entirely now stands at almost 100,000.
Small businesses across the country have benefited from the scheme, including around 2,400 in the Stirling area alone. Those small businesses are creating jobs, boosting growth and supporting local communities. I know that the Government will continue to do everything that it can to unlock Scotland’s huge entrepreneurial potential and to support businesses to flourish and grow, as Clare Adamson outlined so well earlier.
I know what an SNP Government will do, but I struggle to fully understand what the Labour Party’s position is with regard to business and growing the economy. For instance, small business people in my constituency ask me all the time whether Labour supports the small business bonus scheme. Perhaps someone from the Labour front bench will tell us during today’s debate whether the party will commit to supporting the scheme during the lifetime of the next session, thereby, like the SNP, showing leadership and forward thinking when it comes to supporting Scotland’s small business sector.
Tourism makes a huge contribution to the Scottish economy, touching in some way on almost every business in Scotland. It certainly makes a vital contribution to the economy of the Stirling constituency. That sector is a key contributor to the economic health of Scotland and my constituency. I say to Sarah Boyack, who is not with us today—rather, she is not with us now; I know that she was here earlier, because I heard her—that I am looking forward to hearing my Labour opponent, whoever that lucky person turns to be, explaining to the thousands of tourism-related businesses why Labour is opposed to a cut in air passenger duty.
I am looking forward to my Labour opponent explaining why a 50 per cent cut in APD is bad for the tourism industry. I also look forward to them explaining why it is a bad thing to halve APD, create nearly 4,000 jobs and add £1 billion the Scottish economy by 2020 and how it would be a good thing for the Scottish economy to lose up to £68 million per year in tourism revenue until 2020.
Draw to a close, please.
Whatever, the Labour candidate will always be able to fall back on their campaign slogan #SNPbad. That slogan is doomed to failure. I say bring it on.
16:15
Given that this is the last year that I will come back to the Parliament, I wish everyone, whatever party they are in, a very happy new year.
I will focus not on how much money we have and whose fault it is that we do not have enough money but on value for money and good-quality public services.
The extra £2 million that has been allocated to teachers will not deliver the closing of the attainment gap to which the First Minister is committed—I welcome that commitment—unless the Government considers the teacher training degree. In Scotland, 20 hours in a three-year degree are allocated to literacy and numeracy training, compared with 90 hours in England. It is not all about the money that is spent but about how well that money is spent.
To ensure that the £100 million that is being provided over three years to address the attainment gap is effectively spent, we need to understand why pupils perform well in numeracy in primary 7 but their performance falls by more than a third by secondary 2. Surely we need to understand that rather than spending the money and then trying to find out what the problems are.
We should also understand why, in Dundee, less than 30 per cent of pupils achieve five awards at S4 compared to 70 per cent in East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire. Coming from Dundee, I feel passionately about that. People should have the same opportunities wherever they live in Scotland.
I thoroughly agree with the Conservative policy of giving the attainment fund moneys to schools because not every pupil with low levels of attainment lives in a deprived area. Many do, but pupils of all ages and from all backgrounds suffer poor attainment. They should get the same help individually whatever school and area they are in.
When it comes to addressing inequalities, Scotland’s colleges are important. I know because I was a lecturer for 20 years before coming to the Parliament. Many people got a second chance of qualification and a training course at college. However, 150,000 part-time places have been lost and 74,000 places have been lost for people who are over 25. Where are the efficiency savings from the college merger programme? They have still to be identified.
The Government’s management not only of colleges but of severance payments to senior staff and principals has been shameful. When the Public Audit Committee examined Coatbridge College, where the principal walked away with £304,000, it found out that most of the other colleges in Scotland had done the same. The Scottish Government should have managed that but did not.
Then we had T in the Park. The request for funding from DF Concerts and Events clearly stated:
“There are four main areas … regarding infrastructure”.
The Government’s guidance on the funding stated:
“Under no circumstances can the Grant be used to”
supply
“infrastructure”.
Never mind the guidance, the Government gave £150,000.
After nine years of the SNP being in government, we still do not have a set of accounts for the devolved public sector in Scotland. Audit Scotland says:
“it is difficult for the Scottish Parliament, taxpayers and others to get a full picture and understanding about”
public spending
“and the … implications for public finances.”
We are going into another election, and we still do not have a balance sheet for Scotland.
It is very easy for the SNP to blame Westminster but, in what is one of my last speeches in the Parliament, I ask the Scottish nationalist Government to start taking a bit of responsibility for the powers that it has instead of constantly blaming Westminster.
I will give a couple of examples that relate to information and communication technology. The new NHS 24 IT system is costing £450,000 every month for nothing, because it does not work, and the common agricultural policy futures programme is 78 per cent over budget. We were assured that the Government was going to help and sort all that out, but it has not happened.
Draw to a close, please.
I say to the SNP that, instead of arguing and constantly blaming Westminster, it is time to get the same grip on the delivery of public services and value for money; only then will all of Scotland prosper.
16:20
A number of members, including Ken Macintosh and Murdo Fraser, have mentioned the title of this Government debate, which is “Supporting Public Services, Tackling Inequality and Growing Scotland’s Economy”. I will not reiterate all the points that my colleagues have made, because they have covered the issues very well. Mike Russell mentioned localism and subsidiarity, Bruce Crawford mentioned business rates and small businesses, and others have mentioned health and education.
I am really proud to take part in the debate in this first meeting of Parliament in 2016. As the First Minister said, the debate puts the full potential of Scotland and its people at the forefront in Parliament. I thank the First Minister for laying out her vision—in particular, for the emphasis on tackling inequality. Opposition members have asked where the inequality is. If members are out and about in their constituencies, they will be able to see inequality every single day. It exists not just in deprived areas: there is inequality for those who happen to be women if they try to get a position on a board, and there is inequality in that some men and people of a certain appearance happen to have a higher profile in various industries. That is all to do with inequality. We really need to tackle that and we are doing so. Certainly, with the 50:50 Cabinet, the First Minister has started very well on that.
Through education, we can get rid of inequality. That will not happen as quickly as we would like, but we will get rid of it—especially if we invest in learning from the early years through to higher education. I imagine that education is, for all of us, the key to creating a fairer Scotland. I welcome the £33 million investment in attainment. I disagree with some of the points that Mary Scanlon made about where the money should go, because I think that the schools are best placed to make up their minds on that.
Murdo Fraser mentioned that people in the Scottish National Party—I point out to Mary Scanlon that that is the correct name—always talk about powers in this Parliament and powers at Westminster. It will come as no surprise to anyone in the Opposition that I would like full powers for this Parliament and that I think that that is the right way to go—but we are where we are and we work with the powers that we have. However, I will name just some of the powers that I think would be beneficial not just to the Scottish Parliament but to the Scottish people. I have talked about equality of opportunity and of ambition and about aspirations for all. What about having powers over Trident? If we had those powers, we would not need to send money down to Westminster for Trident. What about having powers over the war in Syria or over the House of Lords?
Will Sandra White give way?
I am sorry, but I have only about a minute left.
In the House of Lords, people get £300 for walking in, staying for 15 minutes and going off again. They do not even need to pay tax on that money.
Those are some of the powers that we could start off with, and there are various other powers. Why should not the money that we raise in Scotland be kept in Scotland?
I see that Sarah Boyack is not here at the moment, but I was impressed by her speech. She is absolutely correct about green energy, carbon capture and wind and wave power, but our hands have been tied by Westminster, which has prevented us from pushing forward on green and renewable energy. We lead the way on that and we could lead the way even more, but because we do not have the powers over that, our hands are tied. People need to learn not a lesson but the truth of that matter.
I would love to go further with the aspirations that we have for this country: people share those aspirations, as we saw in the referendum. There was also such a return of Scottish National Party members to Westminster because people saw that the SNP and the people in the SNP were putting forward fantastic aspirations for this country. There is nothing to be ashamed of in having aspirations for our country and our people; we should not be ashamed of saying that we do.
Will Sandra White take an intervention?
The member is just closing.
I am sorry, I have only 30 seconds left.
We cannot take away the fact that we desperately need and should have full powers. However, we are currently working as best we can with what we have, with an aspirational Scottish Government—a Government that supports equality of ambition and equality of opportunity—and I am proud to represent the Scottish National Party Government in this Parliament.
16:25
Our public services are a lifeline to many people, so it is vital that we fully support and invest in those services. Over the past nine years, many of our public services have been under financial pressure through the council tax freeze, the recession and Tory austerity. Our public services workforce has suffered while striving to perform to the best of its abilities. We must all be grateful to that workforce.
Thousands of council workers have been made redundant, more than 4,000 teachers have been lost, libraries and community halls have been closed, colleges have been squeezed—with 140,000 fewer students—and there has been failing after failing in the police service. On that record, it is clear that the SNP has failed to support public services in Scotland and has failed to keep its promises.
The recent budget shows that local authorities will face further cuts. Although I accept that the Scottish Government’s budget has been cut by 2.2 per cent in real terms, the reduction to the local authority budget of £350 million—a cut of 3.5 per cent—is simply unacceptable, unjustified and wrong.
Will Mary Fee give way?
No. I am sorry, but my time has been cut and I have heard enough meaningless rhetoric from the SNP today, thank you.
A cut to local authority spending of such a high proportion affects the quality of the public services that we receive and will inevitably lead to a great number of job losses. Local authorities play a key role in the education of our young people, they play a vital role in childcare and they play an important role in supporting our most vulnerable people, so they should be protected from such savage cuts.
After John Swinney’s budget announcement, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities highlighted that as a direct impact of the SNP’s austerity budget, 15,000 local authority workers will either lose their jobs or be made redundant. The SNP is not working for people the length and breadth of Scotland and it must be held accountable for that.
The SNP failed to use its new tax-raising powers and refused to increase to 50p the top rate of tax for the very richest. The SNP could have chosen a different path in order to avoid swingeing cuts to local authorities. However, it is clear that the SNP has decided to copy and paste the austerity economics of George Osborne.
The social justice budget has been cut by 7.9 per cent in real terms, the education budget has been cut by 6 per cent in real terms, the fair work budget has been cut by 5.1 per cent in real terms, and the justice budget has been cut by 5.3 per cent. Those decisions on cuts that have been made by this Scottish Government will have a damaging impact on public services and on our most vulnerable people.
Tackling inequality is one of the main issues that brought me into politics. Creating a fairer society with equal opportunities for all is the goal of any socialist, and I aim to work for that goal every day. To tackle inequality, we must invest in education, housing and wages. The 2016-17 budget shows that the Scottish Government has little interest in tackling inequality, with cuts to social justice, education and fair work.
On Sunday the First Minister revealed her key election issues, one of which is the living wage. Over the past couple of years we have heard much from the SNP about the living wage. However, the Government has said that it cannot legislate for the living wage, and SNP members voted time after time against Scottish Labour amendments to the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing “Earnings in Scotland 2015” shows that Scotland lags behind the rest of the UK on paying the living wage of £7.85 an hour. When the figures are broken down by gender, they show that 24 per cent of women employees, in comparison with 15 per cent of men, earned less than the living wage in 2015.
Will Mary Fee give way?
No, thank you.
The SPICe briefing also shows that 65 per cent of those who earn less than the living wage are women. It is no surprise that the private sector pays below the living wage, with 28 per cent of companies paying less, in comparison with 4 per cent in the public sector. Private sector areas such as accommodation and food services, retail and wholesale trade and administration and support services are the worst industries for paying below the living wage.
The debate has covered three important topics, and there has been limited time for us to discuss them all fully. I stress once again that if we are to tackle inequality and grow the economy, we must invest in better housing, better education and better public services.
16:30
Like other members, I extend to everyone my best wishes for 2016.
I begin by looking at our public services. I commend the work that has been going on in my constituency during the flood crisis in Ballater and the surrounding areas. We have seen the public services—our ambulance, police and fire and rescue services—working in a co-ordinated way, along with our council workers and an army of volunteers. We should be very proud that we have such community spirit—indeed, it should give us a sense of pride throughout Scotland. That spirit is replicated in various areas that face crises, and we should commend our emergency services on stepping up to the plate when they are needed.
I was struck by a thought when I was in Ballater and Aboyne yesterday. Bruce Crawford has said today that tourism and small businesses play a vital part in Scotland’s growing economy, which is very true. I believe that Ballater and the surrounding area will play a vital part in that economy. Ballater will be open for business again, and that is due to the community spirit that exists there. That spirit was demonstrated yesterday by the business community, which is working together with everyone else to try to ensure that the clean-up operation takes place as quickly as possible and that a recovery plan is put in place. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, John Swinney, has already indicated that there will be additional moneys available. Again, it was much appreciated that he went to Ballater to see for himself what is going on; I believe that he felt the impact as much as I did. It was quite emotional for me to engage with many of the people in the area. Again, I come back to the community spirit, which was absolutely immense.
We have a lot to be proud of in my constituency, including the work that has been going on with the Scottish Government. Mary Fee says that she has heard enough SNP rhetoric, but I am proud of what we have achieved in this session of Parliament and during the SNP Government’s terms of office since 2007.
In my constituency, the work on the Inveramsay bridge, which has nearly been completed, will make a tremendous difference for commuters on the A96, and the work that will take place on the railway between Aberdeen and Inverness, with Kintore station being ready by 2019, will make an immense difference for people in that community.
We should also be proud of the infrastructure work that is going on with BT through the rural connectivity programme to enable people in rural and remote areas to set up small businesses. Digital connectivity also enables people to engage with health services—for example, through videoconferencing. People no longer have to travel for many hours to go to a 20-minute appointment. We should be proud of what the Government has achieved in that regard because it is something from which people get a tangible benefit.
Members have mentioned in the debate that there are other areas to be proud of, but I am very proud of what we have achieved in the health service. Grampian underwent a difficult time, but it has come through that period and we now have in Grampian a health service to be proud of. We can also be proud that new moneys have been introduced to our mental health service. That is additional money. We also have moneys that were not there before for our child and adolescent mental health services, and we can see the benefit for our young people.
Will you draw to a close, please?
There is much to be proud of with this Scottish Government and the aspirations that we have for the future.
Before we move on to the closing speeches, I say that I would be grateful if the four members who are due to be in the chamber for the closing speeches would rejoin us for them, please.
16:36
I, too, wish everybody a happy and eventful new year.
I start by paying tribute to a public service that has not been mentioned this afternoon—public service broadcasting. In particular, I pay tribute to our public service broadcaster in Scotland, BBC Scotland, and more particularly still to that consummate broadcaster Jackie Bird and the BBC’s Hogmanay coverage, which mercifully spared the nation the commercial alternative, for there on the other channel was the former comedienne in what used to be known as the “don’t watch alone” slot, staging a sort of recreation of the opening scenes of “Macbeth” and that sort of new year programming that Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu used to be so fond of. The First Minister likes to refer to polls and trends. In the last poll of 2015 and the first of 2016, the nation voted with its remote controls, and by a margin of eight to one it switched away to public service broadcasting and from the SNP.
The opening speech in this afternoon’s debate, which is on public services, was in fact the inaugural campaign speech for the elections that are due in May, and that tone was followed, although if the contributions from SNP back benchers this afternoon are any indication of their enthusiasm for the campaign, they were as lacklustre a collection of tributes as one could possibly imagine.
During the recess, I read something that the First Minister said, and I thought that it was a truth. She said that, when Opposition parties and others accuse the SNP and say that Scotland is a one-party state, it says more about the shortcomings of others than it does about the SNP’s political success. There is some truth in that. There is a responsibility on Opposition parties to provide opposition and critique, but also to provide an alternative vision for Scotland.
However, this afternoon, the First Minister gave us a highly selective series of statistics across all areas of responsibility. This is not an Administration of wholly mendacious people and I am happy to acknowledge that, like any Government, it has some achievements and things that are to its credit in its account. However, as Willie Rennie and others demonstrated, the unalloyed tribute of success that the First Minister articulated is far from a comprehensive truth.
The SNP came to office nine years ago with no record to defend. Now, it spins to deny its failures and failings and, without so much as a passing blush, it extols its doings as an almost biblical success in worldwide democratic politics. This afternoon, the First Minister made fresh promises with so many of those that she made before yet to be fulfilled.
Bruce Crawford demonstrated the SNP mantra that any criticism of the SNP is simply to be rebutted by saying, “SNP bad”. If we talk about the police, education or health, SNP ministers say that it is an attack on the police, teachers, nurses, hard-working civil servants and others in the public service. Of course it is not. It is an attack on the political, incompetent management of those public services that has been the hallmark of this SNP Government because there is no follow-through.
there was a reorganisation of policing that led to well-advertised failings in people being able to contact the police.
The First Minister talked about the percentage of those from deprived backgrounds who are in higher education being higher than in 2007, but she did not mention that it was a far smaller percentage than has been achieved in England, where higher education is underpinned by far lower bursaries.
There was no mention of the fact that the Scottish Government spent great amounts of money on a new hospital in Glasgow—great news for Glasgow—but did not think about how people and staff were supposed to get to it and where they were supposed to park when they did, or about how people were supposed to be treated when they went into the hospital. Constituents from the south side of Glasgow are still coming to me and saying that when they arrive at the hospital and ask at reception for accident and emergency, they are told, “We don’t know where it is.”
Will the member give way?
In a second.
When I raised that issue in the programme for government debate at the beginning of this term, the First Minister’s response was to say that she had sent in a team that would rectify all the problems. All the problems continue, however, and we are now told that we can expect that hospital to be functioning effectively some time in the spring, at the earliest.
In case Jackson Carlaw forgets—I am sure that he was not going to—will he take the opportunity to join me in congratulating NHS staff across the country on delivering the best accident and emergency waiting times in the whole of the United Kingdom?
As if to prove my point, any criticism of the SNP’s performance on health is responded to by the SNP saying that we are criticising the staff. However, the staff in the NHS do not want platitudes of congratulations in the chamber from politicians. [Interruption.]
Order!
What they want is a proper health service being delivered that is sustainable going into the future.
What we got today from the First Minister was the usual overblown, highfalutin’ rhetoric about her successes. She said that she was going to make a fresh argument about independence, but singularly failed to articulate it this afternoon. To my absolute astonishment, she concluded with a political tribute to Margaret Thatcher—I know that the First Minister has just finished her biography. I remember that Margaret Thatcher’s third election campaign had a strapline that referred to the next steps forward and at the heart of Nicola Sturgeon’s peroration were the words “the next steps” forward.
Between now and May, the Scottish Conservatives will build on our education announcements, detailed by Ruth Davidson and Murdo Fraser today, with policies on health, justice, opportunity and the economy. We will do so as a party with an unswerving commitment to the United Kingdom and Scotland’s place and role in it, to the defence of the UK and to a low-tax, entrepreneurial economy that offers real opportunities to the have-nots in Scotland, who have been so let down by this Government in practice.
16:42
As Mary Fee said, three big issues are being debated today: public services, tackling inequality and growing Scotland’s economy. In the time that we have had in the debate, we have been able to do them some justice. However, I certainly look forward to the debate over the next four months and I hope that they will be the big issues that we will debate as we go forward to the Scottish general election.
To reflect on the debate, I will start with Ruth Davidson’s comments about the Conservatives making a play to be the official Opposition in Scotland. I say to her that for the first time in more than half a century, we have absolute poverty in communities the length and breadth of Scotland, which is absolutely down to the policies of the Tory Government. I do not know about “SNP bad”, but I certainly know that the policies of the Tories and what they stand for in Scotland are bad. I am sure that the people of Scotland will recognise that at the polls in May.
Bruce Crawford talked about “SNP bad”, but I thought that it was the SNP that came up with that term. So, if Bruce Crawford is unhappy with it, he will need to give his own party a ticking off. However, Bruce Crawford also talked about record numbers of flights and air passenger duty, and said that he could not understand why Labour would oppose the SNP’s policy on APD. We have record numbers of flights in Scotland right now and airline companies are reaping the rewards from record low levels for fuel costs. However, abolishing air passenger duty will cost us millions upon millions of pounds. The Scottish Government is willing to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a tax cut in an area where it would be fine to do so in good times, but at the same time we are seeing hundreds of millions of pounds being cut from public services right across Scotland. That is the choice and, for me, the choice that I would make every day would be to invest in public services.
Kevin Stewart said that he wanted to concentrate on what Nicola Sturgeon had to say and I will do likewise. I am someone who tends to believe that his glass is always half full. Where I see policy and investment, I will welcome that. I take the example of health and social care. I have raised with the Deputy First Minister on a number of occasions the need to shift funding from health to health and social care in recognition of the fact that community care does not come cheap, and I welcome the fact that he said in his budget that he intended to do that.
However, there is a further crisis in social care, which brings me to another issue that the First Minister raised: the living wage. She rightly highlighted the success of the efforts that have been made on the living wage, in that more and more companies are introducing it, but that is causing problems in some sectors, particularly health and social care. If the living wage is to be paid in that sector, the money needs to be found from somewhere. Given that the majority of the moneys that go into health and social care go in through the public sector, if we want care workers up and down Scotland to be paid a decent wage—the living wage—we must recognise that it is the responsibility of Government to put money into that. Labour in Scotland has said that we will fund the introduction of a living wage right across the care sector in Scotland and I hope that the SNP will consider doing that with us.
We also need to recognise where we can grow jobs in the economy in the short term. One such area is the care sector. This morning, I read about a company in the care sector in Fife that has reported losses for the first time. One reason that it gave for that was the use of agency staff. It is having to bring in agency staff because there is a major problem with recruitment and retention in the care sector. We must recognise that, in investing in the living wage, as well as investing in quality social care across Scotland, we would be growing the economy and growing the number of jobs, and the case for that is absolutely clear.
For me, when it comes to the economy, the key issue is jobs—good jobs—for young people and for the long-term unemployed. I am talking about quality jobs that will last and around which we can build our future. That is why what we need is a strategy for jobs, to ensure that we can give everyone that opportunity and show that we are ambitious for all the people of Scotland and not just some of them.
Does the member agree that social care, whether it is home care or residential care, should be funded at the same level regardless of whether the person is in a council-run home or an independently run home? If that were the case, it would allow every care worker to be paid the living wage.
I do not agree, but that is a different debate and one that I do not have time to engage in now.
On 2 December, I wrote to the Minister for Housing and Welfare to welcome the fact that Nicola Sturgeon had confirmed that the Government had a commitment to building 50,000 houses for rent. I see that that has become a commitment to building 50,000 affordable houses. Shelter Scotland and others have talked about the need for 50,000 houses for rent to be provided—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I do not have time.
I wrote to the housing minister and I set out a number of proposals. The First Minister constantly invites those who have ideas to bring them to the Government. I made some very positive suggestions to the housing minister. There is a consensus that there is a housing crisis in Scotland. Shelter Scotland tells us that there is, and we know that from the statistics. There were 150,000 households on local authority waiting lists as of 31 March last year.
I agree with Alex Rowley on the importance of housing supply, which is why we have committed to providing 50,000 affordable houses over the next parliamentary session. Will he explain why the pledge that he is making on housing is nothing to do with housing supply and why Labour has still said nothing about increasing housing supply in Scotland?
That is only one part of housing. For Labour in Scotland, housing is a big issue and we will talk about housing and bring forward more proposals for housing in the coming weeks and months. I hope that we can have a debate on housing in Scotland.
As our leader, Kezia Dugdale, announced today, we will help young people to get on the housing ladder. Many young people in my constituency and, I am sure, in other members’ constituencies find it difficult to raise a deposit to get a mortgage. Particularly since the banking crisis, banks are not helping young people. Labour in Scotland will help young people to get houses, but we are equally clear that Labour will build houses and ensure, in partnership with local authorities, that we build social houses for rent—recognising, as Shelter Scotland has said, that we have a housing crisis.
I finish where I started. My glass is always half full. I and Labour in Scotland will work with any party in the chamber to tackle inequality, get good public services and create jobs so that we share the wealth throughout the whole of Scotland.
16:51
This afternoon, we learned something important—it was a revelation to me—about Jackson Carlaw. I think that there was a hint of jealousy in Jackson Carlaw’s condemnation of STV’s screening of that magnificent piece of Hogmanay television that involved the First Minister.
Did you watch it?
Order.
Mr Carlaw is such a gentleman that he should know not even to ask the question. Of course I watched the programme—it was magnificent, and Mr Carlaw knows that it was magnificent because he watched it, too. I hope that that demonstrates, for the benefit of Mr Carlaw, that I am not on the mendacious side of this Administration. I will be fascinated by his explanation of who he believes fits into which particular category as the months leading up to the election campaign wear on.
I am going through one of those phases in my life during which I am enjoying the speeches of Michael Russell. It has not always been like that, but Mr Russell made a substantial and thoughtful speech today. In one phrase, he captured the difficulty and the dilemma that lies at the heart of the Opposition’s critique of the Government. As I put away the Christmas decorations, I had the misfortune to come across an old box of press cuttings in the attic, which deserves to be thrown out. Those cuttings showed how the SNP just argued its case against whatever was prevailing from the Government, saying only what was wrong with the incumbent Government. Mr Russell summed up that approach beautifully when he said that “muckle guid” it did us. If the Opposition parties do not listen to what Mr Russell said today, they will have invited upon themselves what comes their way. As Ruth Davidson eloquently predicted, they will be involved in a scrap for second place between the Conservatives and the Labour Party—and they will be welcome to that scrap for second place while we set out our vision of how we will take forward the future of our country.
Although we accept that there is always work to be done to deliver on the commitments and priorities of Government and to meet the challenges of the day, there are achievements on which the Government is right to found its record and opinions. The Opposition parties could have talked about the fact that our economy has grown in each and every quarter over the past three years. They could have cited the fact that employment in Scotland has risen again while unemployment has fallen. They could have cited—as the First Minister did during an intervention—the fact that, in the week ending 27 December, 96.1 per cent of patients were seen, treated and discharged from accident and emergency units within four hours—the best performance in any of the past five years. They could have talked about the record passes in the advanced highers system and the implementation of curriculum for excellence, about how children in Scotland now have access to 600 hours of free, high-quality early learning and childcare, or about the 41-year low in crime.
The Opposition could have talked about all that, but no, it chose to run the familiar critique that Mr Russell effectively captured, with its agenda of running down everything that the Government represents. Mr Rowley knows that I have the greatest and deepest respect for him, but when he says that the Labour Party is prepared to work with us on all the issues, I have to say that there is scant evidence in Labour members’ speeches of the party’s willingness to work with us on any particular question. There is a need for Opposition members to take heed of the wise words that Mr Russell quoted—“muckle guid” it did us—as they look forward to the forthcoming election campaign.
Another point that came out of Mr Russell’s speech was that Scotland is in an optimistic mood. I think that that is where Scotland is today. Scotland wants to hear about what it is possible to achieve and what we can do to ensure that we live in a stronger and more effective society. The Government debate’s focus on improving the delivery of public services, measures to strengthen the economy and efforts to tackle inequality captured the range of propositions and approaches that we are taking forward and which underpin the choices that we made in the budget that we put to the Parliament.
Some of us give credit where it is due. For example, I like the business pledge and the ethical standards of employment practice that it sets out. However, will the First Minister and Deputy First Minister go further and make those ethical standards of employment practice a requirement for companies that want to access taxpayer-funded support services and grant schemes? That is the kind of measure that would build on the credibility that has been generated and make a difference to our ability to ensure that employees in Scotland are treated well by their employers.
The Government is trying to win the argument, across all sectors of the economy, about the importance of making the commitments that are inherent in the Scottish business pledge, and the business community in Scotland has responded strongly and positively. Many advocates in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector and in larger companies are prepared to make the commitment. We want to build on companies’ willingness to work with the Government voluntarily to improve the quality of employment, because if we improve the quality of employment we will improve productivity and ultimately the public finances of Scotland, thereby increasing the resources that are at our disposal to deliver on the agenda that we take forward.
Much of today’s discussion has hinged on questions that are inherent in the Government’s budget, which reflects the themes of improving public services, strengthening the economy and tackling inequality. Over the next few weeks in Parliament, the debates that we will have on the scrutiny of the Government’s budget will require Opposition parties to come forward with alternatives to the Government’s propositions. It is all too easy to come to Parliament and just set out all the things that appear to be wrong with the Government’s budget.
Mr Rowley just said that he fully supports what the Government is doing to shift the balance of care and put much greater emphasis on social care—an approach that is being fuelled by the £250 million of new resources that we are putting into the system. Mr Rowley’s support is welcome, but his position was scarcely recognisable in Mr Macintosh’s speech, when the whole proposition, which is central to the budget that I set out in December, was attacked as being some form of attack on local government in Scotland.
Does the Deputy First Minister accept that, as a result of the budget, education authorities up and down Scotland will cut education budgets this year?
I do not think that that is in any way inevitable. At the heart of the budget there has to be acceptance of the arguments for the necessity of reform in how we deliver public services. The reform agenda is inescapable and unavoidable for every member of this Parliament. This Government has embraced it and accepted reform. We have accepted reform of the police and fire services.
Mr Rennie belittles the approach on police reform, but crime is at a 41-year low in Scotland today. On the fire service reform, in my constituency I saw with my own eyes the strength and the advantage of that reform, because it has ensured that resources that would not ordinarily be available in Tayside were made available to help my constituents deal with the difficulties that they faced. The reform was difficult, but this Government progressed it. We have also reformed colleges to ensure that we focused courses on employment. There are also other aspects of public service reform that we will undertake.
I know that we are not allowed to question the Scottish Government any more, but is that the Deputy First Minister’s considered analysis of the Police Scotland reforms? Crime is at a 41-year low—is that it? Is there nothing else—nothing about call centres, stop and search or armed police? Is that his analysis, seriously?
It is, Mr Rennie, because the people whom I represent care about living in a country where crime is at a 41-year low. The sooner that the Liberal Democrats understand that the better—they might even have more than five members in this Parliament after the election.
We are proud to stand on our record. More important, we will set out, as the First Minister did today, a vision of how we can build on that record to create a strong society that is driven by the determination to tackle inequality, to deliver the economic opportunity of that society and to deliver the public services on which our citizens depend.
Previous
Topical Question TimeNext
Decision Time