Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03031)
This morning, I convened a meeting of the Scottish Government’s resilience committee to discuss the on-going suspension of flights to and from Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt. My officials are in close contact with United Kingdom Government officials and will continue to be so. We understand that there are currently around 20,000 British nationals in Sharm el Sheikh and we estimate at this stage that at least several hundred of them are Scots. Transport Scotland is in touch with Thomson Holidays to discuss the support and advice that are being provided. I assure the chamber that the Scottish Government will continue to liaise closely with UK Government colleagues to ensure that all appropriate support is in place.
Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Across the UK, Labour will fight the Tory Government’s attempts to cut tax credits. We want George Osborne to scrap his plan altogether but, if he does not, the Scottish Parliament must act to protect working families.
Despite days of protesting that it was not possible, yesterday the Scottish National Party Government finally admitted that we will have the power to restore money lost through tax credit cuts. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights said that measures would be outlined after the autumn statement but, unlike on its £250 million plan to abolish air passenger duty, we have no detail on how much the SNP is willing to spend to protect working families. In fact, for weeks, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy said that restoring tax credits was unaffordable. Does the First Minister agree with her finance secretary that spending hundreds of millions of pounds to make airline tickets cheaper is affordable but restoring tax credits is not?
Let me set out the Scottish Government’s position. First, over the next three weeks, we intend to keep up the pressure on George Osborne to drop his plans for tax credit cuts. Unlike Labour, which, members should remember, initially abstained in the House of Commons on the issue, the SNP has consistently opposed the cuts. It is all too typical of Scottish Labour that, just when the pressure on George Osborne is building across the UK, the party eases up on the Tories and attacks the SNP instead. It seems that old habits and old friendships die hard.
We will keep up the pressure on the Tories to drop the cuts altogether and, if they do not completely reverse them, we, as a responsible Government, will introduce credible, deliverable and affordable plans to protect low-income households, just as we did on the bedroom tax. [Interruption.]
Order.
As we remember, first of all on the bedroom tax, Labour brought forward a plan that would have been illegal and unworkable; the Government brought forward one that worked. To be frank, that is a far better plan and it is far fairer for people who are affected by the cuts than back-of-a-fag-packet proposals from a party that knows that it has little chance of ever being in a position to implement them.
The First Minister forgets that a Labour Government introduced tax credits. We will do everything that we can to protect them, including using the powers of this Parliament.
No matter what George Osborne does at the autumn statement, we in Scottish Labour are committed to restoring the money that is lost through tax credit cuts for working families because we have made a choice. We know that it is affordable. We have costed it at its most expensive and we know that any concessions from the chancellor will only reduce that cost. We think that it is more important than a multimillion-pound plan to reduce the cost of airline tickets. [Interruption.]
Order. Continue, Ms Dugdale. [Interruption.] Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.
There are 6,000 families in the First Minister’s constituency who rely on tax credits and they deserve a bit more than a vague assurance from the Scottish National Party that the Government will act. Can the First Minister confirm to those 6,000 families and the thousands more across the country that the Scottish Government’s proposals will ensure that, when the new powers are available, every family will receive the same entitlement from the Government as they do now—yes or no?
Let me repeat what I said in my first answer: we will continue to oppose the proposed cuts at source, unlike Labour, which abstained when it came to a vote in the House of Commons on tax credit cuts. We will oppose the cuts, but if they go ahead, we will bring forward a credible, workable, deliverable and affordable plan—
Yes or no?
Order, Mr Findlay.
—to protect low-income households.
I say to Kezia Dugdale that the detail of this matters to the families out there who are affected. One of the details that matter most is how the tax credits policy would be paid for. Kezia Dugdale has mentioned air passenger duty as the source—or a source—of the funding for it.
For today’s purposes, let us put to one side the fact that that money would not be available when Kezia Dugdale was required to pay for the tax credits policy and consider what she had to say about air passenger duty the day before she announced that policy. In an interview in Holyrood magazine the day before she announced her position on tax credits, she said that Labour would scrap the air passenger duty measure and spend that money on education, so in the space of 24 hours Labour managed to spend the same sum of money twice over. I say in all seriousness to Kezia Dugdale that that is basic incompetence and, frankly, the people of Scotland deserve better.
We have known for some time that the public think that Labour is unelectable. What we have found out this week is that Labour thinks that Labour is unelectable. It is less Keir Hardie, more Laurel and Hardy.
Ms Dugdale, will you try to keep your question brief? First Minister, will you try to keep your next answer brief, too?
All that from a party that has had three different positions on tax credits in the past 24 hours. If the past few days have taught us anything, it is that this Government needs to be held to account.
Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister told working families that they would just have to wait and see what happened next. Today in this chamber, the First Minister is saying exactly the same thing. I have listened to Nicola Sturgeon very carefully, and I listened very carefully to Alex Neil on the television last night. Both of them have said that they will ensure that the income of those who are in receipt of tax credits does not fall, but that sounds a little like the Tory argument that higher wages will automatically make up the difference.
Therefore, I again ask the First Minister whether, under the Scottish Government’s proposal, every family will receive the same entitlement from the Government as they do now.
I am not quite sure what it is that is difficult to understand. I do not yet accept that the proposed cuts will take place, because pressure is building on George Osborne to reverse them, so I think that, right now, we should be united in making sure that the pressure stays on the Tories. If George Osborne does the wrong thing, we will come forward with credible proposals to protect low-income families. People around this country who are worried about their tax credits deserve more than slogans. [Interruption.]
Order.
They deserve detail from a Government that they know can deliver.
Earlier on, I referred to Kezia Dugdale’s interview in Holyrood magazine. Something else in that interview was illuminating. She narrated a conversation with a Welsh minister in which she had asked him,
“‘where are you finding the money from for these ... big commitments?’”
and he had said that
“they would worry about that later.”
Kezia said:
“I was quite impressed by ... the boldness ... of that”.
Most people would be utterly appalled by the incompetence of that. I will leave Labour in the la-la land that it increasingly inhabits and get on with the job of governing the country in the interests of the people we serve.
Briefly, Ms Dugdale.
The truth is that this is the week in which the SNP’s constitutional games came unstuck. After years of responding to every problem with complaints about the constitution, Alex Neil finally gave the game away. This is the week in which the SNP had to admit that the new powers that are heading our way can transform Scotland and had to confront the fact that difficult choices will have to be made. Will the First Minister now give up the politics of grievance? Will she now look to the future of what is possible, move on from the past and just get on with delivering a fairer Scotland?
There is one place only in the UK where Labour can be judged on its actions, not its words. In Wales, which I referred to a moment ago, Labour does not even mitigate the bedroom tax. That is the reality of Labour in government.
I will continue to concentrate first on forcing the Tories to abandon the cuts. The reason why Labour will not do likewise is that, in the words of its shadow chancellor last weekend, the SNP is “the real enemy”. That is the nub of the matter. Labour is not motivated by concern for ordinary people, and it has not been for a long time. [Interruption.]
Order.
Labour is motivated by its tribal hatred of the SNP. I think that the Tories are the enemy of working people in Scotland. It is just a shame that Labour seems to have forgotten that.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-03027)
No plans in the near future.
Earlier this week, a leading group of education experts, led by Keir Bloomer, who is a former director of education, questioned the Government’s plans to help pupils from poorer backgrounds. Its report concluded that it was
“not persuaded that the strategies ... that will be needed for success are yet in place.”
We all want more poorer pupils to be able to get the grades to go to good universities. That expert group says that the plans that the Scottish National Party is putting in place simply will not do that. Why are those experts wrong?
I hope that Kezia Dugdale—Ruth Davidson, rather; I struggle to tell between them these days. I hope that Ruth Davidson accepts, even if she does not agree with my policy, that I have made it very clear how serious I am about improving education in Scotland and closing the attainment gap. I read with interest the report that she referred to. I do not agree with every aspect of it, but I thought that it was an interesting contribution. I will meet its author, Keir Bloomer, next week to discuss it and how he and the other members of his team can contribute to Scottish Government thinking on the issue.
We are serious about the matter. That is why we already have more than 300 primary schools across the country benefiting from the additional resources of the attainment fund and why work is continuing apace on the national improvement framework, which will, among other things, give us for the first time in primary schools the chance to measure reliably improvement in our education and the closing of the attainment gap.
We are seeing evidence of the attainment gap in Scotland closing. That is not far enough or fast enough for my liking, which is why I am determined that we go further and faster. I have said to Ruth Davidson before and I say to everybody across the chamber that I am open to suggestions, and I always have been. I do not think that I have had any suggestions from anywhere across the chamber, but there is no doubt whatsoever that education is a priority for me and my Government, and it will continue to be so.
I thank the First Minister for that answer, telling the Parliament how seriously she now takes the attainment gap. She did not, however, provide the full facts. Under freedom of information, we have obtained the latest figures on the number of students getting three As at higher, which is one of the measures for getting into a good university. It is not pretty reading.
We knew that the Scottish National Party Government was not closing the attainment gap. Now, from these figures, we know that the gap between the richest and poorest students is actually getting wider. In fact, in four local authorities, not a single pupil from the least affluent homes attained three As in their highers, whereas a wealthier pupil is now seven times more likely to get three As than their more deprived peers. We will publish all those figures this afternoon.
The First Minister has said that she wants to be judged on her record. In education, her record is one of failure, and the experts say that her plans will not fix it. I ask her: how bad do things have to get before we see the action that we need?
As Ruth Davidson knows, we are taking action, and we will continue to take action. I am not standing here saying that there is not more work to do—and I never have stood here and said that. That is why we have taken the action around the attainment challenge that I have already talked about.
In many respects, we are seeing evidence of the attainment gap narrowing. In 2007, for example, 23 per cent of pupils from the 20 per cent most deprived areas got at least one higher. That figure is now 40 per cent. For qualifications at level 5, the gap between the 10 per cent most deprived and the 10 per cent least deprived has fallen from 42.5 per cent to 26 per cent. Those figures evidence some progress, but that progress is not enough for me, and I would not expect it to be enough for anyone. That is why we are putting so much emphasis on the attainment work.
Ruth Davidson can cite higher results and I can cite higher results. As I have said before, one of the problems that we have is that we cannot cite such evidence from earlier in a child’s school progress. If the attainment gap has not been dealt with by the time we get to higher, perhaps it is too late to do so. That is why the national improvement framework is so important—so that we can start dealing with the issue not even in primary school but in early years and through primary school, so that improvements take place later on in school careers. That is the emphasis that we are putting on that work, and I would hope that Ruth Davidson would welcome that.
The First Minister will be aware of the announcement by the Stuttgart-based engineering firm Mahle that more than 170 jobs are to be lost in the bearings finishing department of the business in Kilmarnock by January next year and that the company plans to move that production to other plants in Europe, despite the renowned quality of the bearings that have been produced by the Kilmarnock staff over many years and the solid performance of the company worldwide. Will the First Minister see what intervention with the company might be possible to try to save those jobs and to help prevent yet another jobs body blow to the town?
I welcome Willie Coffey’s question. I share his concern at the announcement of possible redundancies at the Mahle group works in Kilmarnock. I am sure that this is a very worrying time for all affected employees.
I confirm that Scottish Enterprise has offered support to the company and will meet senior management next week to discuss it. I can also confirm that a partnership action for continuing employment team will meet representatives of the company next week to discuss a tailored programme of PACE support for any employees who may be facing redundancy.
The Scottish Government will take any action that we possibly can, and I know that the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism would be very happy to discuss the matter in more detail with Willie Coffey.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03025)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
This week the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning had an online question and answer session. Not one person agreed with Angela Constance about the national standardised testing, and the international experts of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development warn that the risk of national testing is
“narrowing the curriculum and teaching to the test.”
One of the issues is league tables. The First Minister told me that she was against league tables, but she has told journalists that she will not stop them putting primary schools into league tables. If she does not want them, why is she going ahead and taking all the steps to allow them to happen?
It may have escaped Willie Rennie’s notice, but I do not control the newspapers. Perhaps if I did, things would be very different.
There is something quite reassuring for me here. On the one hand, I have Ruth Davidson telling me that I am not going far enough regarding school reform. On the other hand, I have Willie Rennie telling me that I am going far too far on school reform. That tells me that we are probably in exactly the right place in terms of reforming our schools, how we measure their performance and the attainment gap.
I stand by what I said. I have no interest in crude league tables that offer no meaning to parents; nor do I have any interest in a system that would encourage teaching to the test. It is incumbent on me as First Minister to make sure that children’s progress is being assessed in a way that better informs the judgments teachers make about their performance and that also allows all of us to have a meaningful and evidenced debate in this chamber and across Scotland about whether we are or are not making progress in closing the attainment gap. I think that that is absolutely the right thing to do.
We will continue to discuss the detail of our plans with teachers, local authorities, parents and others, but I am determined—as I said to Ruth Davidson—that we make real progress and I will push forward for that reason.
So league tables are coming and the First Minister has not convinced one single person that she is going to stop them. The OECD says that
“Of equal importance is consensus-building among the various stakeholders involved”,
but Professor Brian Boyd, who was a member of the curriculum review group, said that it was “a retrograde step”. Headteacher George Gilchrist said that it is “a definite step backwards”. The Educational Institute of Scotland said that testing would have a “profoundly negative impact”. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council concluded that testing does not raise attainment. Why is the Government’s approach to consensus-building just to tell all those people that they are wrong?
It is not, although I will tell Willie Rennie that he is wrong. We are not introducing high-stakes testing; we are introducing assessment—assessment that is carried out in most local authorities anyway—in a standardised way so that we can use it appropriately. It is assessment that will help to inform teachers’ judgments about the performance of children.
We will continue to work—as we are doing right now with teachers and with others—to finalise how we will make use of that information and how we will publish that information in a way that does not lead to crude league tables. That is the way that we will continue to get on with it.
Willie Rennie has twice mentioned the OECD. We should in the not-too-distant future get the OECD’s latest report on the performance of Scottish education. I look forward to receiving that; I hope that it will be a useful contribution to our on-going work in the area. It is an area that, as I have said repeatedly and will continue to say, I have set as a priority, and I am going to continue treat it in that way.
Scotland Bill (Amendments)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on how the United Kingdom Government’s latest amendments to the Scotland Bill could impact on the governance of Scotland. (S4F-03029)
It has been quite interesting this week, has it not, that a bill that it was claimed would deliver the vow in full when it was first introduced needed so many amendments to make it supposedly deliver the vow now. I think that the amendments will improve the bill in some key areas—in particular, the late amendment that was tabled yesterday by the United Kingdom Government—but the bill still falls far, far short in other areas.
On whether the bill delivers on the promises that were made, it will of course be for the people to judge that in the election next May. Scottish National Party MPs will propose further amendments in the House of Commons next week, including one that would deliver real power over tax credits in their entirety, and we call on all members to support those amendments.
More generally, our priority now is to agree a fair fiscal framework so that we can get on with using the new powers for the benefit of the people whom we serve.
The Scotland Bill goes nowhere near to delivering on the Smith commission proposals, never mind to fulfilling the vow. Does the First Minister share the view of a number of third sector organisations that the proposed devolution of the work programme while Westminster will retain power over sanctions is incoherent and illogical, as are so many proposals in the bill?
Yes, I do. Benefit conditionality and employability go hand in hand, as anyone knows, and they should have been fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Kevin Stewart is right to point out that many stakeholders have called for that. The issue is symptomatic of the approach that the United Kingdom Government has taken.
The employment provisions in the bill fall short of the Smith recommendations. In my view there is no justification for insisting that we wait 12 months before we step in to help someone who is unemployed. The social security provisions in the bill, notwithstanding welcome improvements, are still full of qualifications and constraints including—perhaps most important—constraints on benefits sanctions.
The sanctions regime has been shown to push people into crisis and is one of the main drivers of use of food banks, which is why we have been clear in saying that there is an urgent need for a full and independent review of the whole sanctions system.
In yesterday’s welfare debate in this Parliament, we saw the shambles of the SNP and the First Minister’s colleague Mr Neil referring to the Scotland Bill and confirming his desire to reverse tax credits cuts by saying:
“The amendments that were tabled today should give the Scottish Parliament that power”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; c 26.]
only to subsequently move an amendment in his name that said the exact opposite.
Does the First Minister agree that her Government needs to move on, stop caterwauling at Westminster, and start telling us how her Government will actually use the extensive new powers?
I have to say that I give Baroness Goldie 10 out of 10 for sheer brass neck. I remind Parliament and, more important, the whole of Scotland, that Baroness Goldie sat in the House of Lords a couple of weeks ago and voted for tax credits cuts that will penalise low-income families. It will be a long time before I am prepared to take any lectures on tax credits in this chamber from Baroness Goldie.
Tax Credits (Assistance)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide assistance to families who lose tax credits as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s proposals. (S4F-03036)
As I said earlier, we intend to keep up pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to drop his plans to cut tax credits. If he does not do so, we will bring forward credible and deliverable plans to assist low-income families. That is in line with the approach that we have already taken to mitigate welfare cuts, including the bedroom tax. This year alone, that approach is backed by more than £100 million of investment.
I say as gently as I can to the First Minister that this is not about her, it is not about the SNP, and it is not even about the shambles that we witnessed from Alex Neil yesterday. This is about the 250,000 families that are set to lose £1,300 a year due to the Tory cuts to tax credits. Protecting income is not the same as restoring tax credits in full; the First Minister’s careful language tells me that she knows that. Let us cut through all the words; I require a one-syllable answer. Will the First Minister help working families and restore every penny that will be lost through tax credits cuts—yes or no?
Here are some words that I never thought I would utter: Jackie Baillie is right about one thing. This is about the families across Scotland who stand to lose tax credits. That is why they deserve better than game-playing. They deserve from their Government real, detailed, credible, deliverable and affordable plans, and that is what they will get.
It really is a bit rich—almost as rich as it was for Annabel Goldie—for Jackie Baillie to stand in this chamber and talk about cuts to the incomes of poor families when, just two days ago, she pressed her button and voted to spend £167 billion on renewing Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
Scottish Rate of Income Tax
To ask the First Minister at what level the Scottish rate of income tax will be set. (S4F-03034)
In a radical new departure, we will announce that in the budget.
At the weekend, the Scottish Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn announced its plans to raise taxes on the Scottish people. The Scottish Conservatives will vigorously oppose any moves to tax families or businesses in Scotland more highly than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Where does the First Minister stand on the issue? Will she join us and rule out higher taxes on families and businesses in Scotland—yes or no?
Murdo Fraser should advise his colleague Alex Johnstone that when he is encouraging me to join him, he should not sit there leering at me in that strange way; it is extremely off-putting. I will recover my composure for just a second.
We will announce our tax plans during the budget, as most Governments tend to do.
Tax really is the last thing that the Tories should be talking about right now. The tax credits cuts that we have been talking about today would, in effect, raise the tax rate for some low-paid workers to 90 per cent. Right now it is the Tories that are the party of high tax on low-income households. Rather than endorse George Osborne’s plans, as I believe he did yesterday, Murdo Fraser would perhaps be better advised to join his leader in asking George Osborne to reverse the cuts, just as we are doing.
I do not think that Mr Johnstone is in the habit of “leering” in this chamber, First Minister.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Problem Debt