Autumn Budget Statement (Barnett Consequentials)
To ask the Scottish Government how it will allocate the Barnett consequentials arising from the autumn statement. (S4O-02767)
As previously announced to Parliament, the Scottish Government’s priorities for the consequentials from the autumn statement will be improving opportunities for our people by ensuring that Scotland is the most attractive place in which to do business through maintaining the most favourable business rates environment in the British isles, and by supporting our children and families through a combination of universal access to free school meals for all our primary 1 to primary 3 children and an ambitious expansion of pre-school provision for two-year-olds.
In particular, those policies will add to our social wage—our contract with the people of Scotland to provide support to hard-pressed households and to ensure that our children have the best start in life. The funding that we have announced will provide parents with additional support when they are looking for employment and maintain that support when they are successful.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, although it is not clear just exactly how much of the £300 million of Barnett consequentials has been allocated by him, how much he has left, and how much he has moved from one year to another in order to deliver on his spending commitments.
In light of that, I ask the cabinet secretary to publish a full breakdown of how he has allocated the Barnett consequentials at the earliest opportunity, so that Opposition members can adequately scrutinise the detail.
The first thing that I will say to Kezia Dugdale is that the consequentials are made up of three different types of consequential funding. The first is resource departmental expenditure limit funding, which must be used on operational Government expenditure; the second is capital DEL, which is for improvement in the capital estate; and the third is £76 million of financial transactions, which—as I have already explained to Mr Bibby in the chamber—cannot be used for operational public expenditure. Therefore, the total resource DEL that is available is £210 million.
The Government has allocated £77 million from that to ensure that we maintain our position—our manifesto commitment—of ensuring that businesses in Scotland do not pay higher business rates than businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom. I now see that Ms Dugdale opposes that approach and that she believes that businesses in Scotland should be paying higher business rates. In addition, her colleague Ms Ferguson said yesterday that we should be reconsidering the small business bonus scheme.
I look forward to the Labour Party explaining to people in Scotland that companies will have to pay higher business rates if the Labour Party has anything to do with it. Higher business rates will damage employment and economic opportunity and make it ever more difficult for people to enter the labour market. Getting people into the labour market is the Scottish Government’s priority.
Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns at Labour front-bench members publicly stating over the past two days that they are considering increasing business rates and cutting support for the small business bonus scheme?
When did we say that?
Order.
Can the cabinet secretary tell me what impact that would have on small businesses and, in particular, on employment in Scotland?
I share Mr Maxwell’s concerns. He has done a very good job in ensuring that the issue has been highlighted on various broadcast media programmes over the past couple of days.
The consequences of not maintaining parity in the business rate poundage north and south of the border would be to return us to the position that we inherited from the previous Government—the previous Labour Government—in Scotland, where companies paid higher business rates than in the rest of the UK and were at a competitive disadvantage. It damaged small businesses and employment prospects in our country. This Government will do everything that it can to maximise employment opportunities in Scotland.
I regret the fact that the cabinet secretary did not make a statement on the consequentials so that the figures could have been clear before the debate on Tuesday. Given that, can he tell us now exactly how much of the money is going to childcare for two-year-olds and how much is going to free school meals—which of course we support, although it was not our first choice?
That one parliamentary question says it all: it is a classic example of having one’s cake and eating it.
Mr Chisholm says that I did not make a parliamentary statement on the consequentials. I made it crystal clear in my local government finance statement to Parliament on 11 December that the Scottish Government would maintain business rate parity with south of the border.
On Mr Chisholm’s point about free school meals and extending childcare, the Scottish Government will spend, over a two-year period, £55 million on free school meals; £59 million on extending childcare for two-year-olds in workless households; and a further £3.5 million on expanding the childcare workforce and taking the necessary preparatory steps so that the workforce is able to deal with the policy’s implementation.
I respectfully encourage experienced parliamentarians such as Mr Chisholm not to fall into the trap of believing that one can spend money that is available to the Government twice and, as a consequence, damage the employment prospects of people in our country.
Renewables Obligation (Scottish Parliament’s Powers)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the House of Lords amendment to the Energy Bill that removes the Scottish Parliament’s powers in respect of the renewables obligation. (S4O-02768)
The United Kingdom Government produced the amendment with no prior consultation, and I am deeply concerned that it has chosen to act in that way to remove powers from Scotland. As the Energy Bill was given royal assent on 18 December, UK ministers now have the power to close the renewables obligation in Scotland.
During the past decade we have used our devolved powers over the renewables obligation effectively and successfully, thereby targeting support to reflect Scottish priorities and drive the development of the renewables sector in Scotland. The amendment provides for a fundamental transfer of powers to Westminster on a topic that is central to the future of the Scottish economy.
Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns about the lack of consultation with the Scottish Government, Scottish ministers and the Parliament on the decision to remove the Scottish Parliament’s discretion over the renewables obligation? Does he agree that it serves as a warning that Westminster may strip more powers from Holyrood in the event of a no vote in the independence referendum?
I make clear to Mr Maxwell and to Parliament my concern at the lack of consultation on the matter, and in particular at the UK Government’s unwillingness to accept the point that has been put to it. That demonstrates that we would be in a far stronger position if we were able to take such decisions for ourselves based on what is right for the circumstances in the Scottish economy and the Scottish marketplace.
As we have demonstrated through the effective use of those powers during the past decade, we can encourage and support the development of a vibrant new renewable energy industry in Scotland.
Next-generation Broadband
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to provide next-generation broadband in the west of Scotland. (S4O-02769)
The Government and our partners are investing more than £409 million to improve access to next-generation broadband. The programme is being delivered through two major infrastructure projects: one that covers the Highlands and Islands, and another that covers the rest of Scotland.
Those interventions focus on delivering next-generation broadband access to the areas where the commercial market will not go, which includes all the west of Scotland local authority areas. With BT as the private sector delivery partner, we estimate that the investment will mean that next-generation broadband infrastructure will be accessible to 85 per cent of Scotland by 2015 and to 97 per cent by 2017.
I recently carried out a consultation on a separate matter in the Inverclyde area in which a number of my constituents raised the issue of broadband capacity. Can the cabinet secretary provide more details on the roll-out of broadband for the rest of Scotland? When can areas such as Inverclyde expect to have improved broadband connectivity?
In terms of coverage, the programme seeks to deliver infrastructure to 95 per cent of premises by the end of 2017. In the rest of Scotland procurement area, coverage is expected to be more than 96 per cent. All local authority areas will benefit from the roll-out, and a process is in place to enable the programme team to work closely with local authority representatives throughout the deployment.
Super-fast broadband is currently available to 73.5 per cent of addresses in the Inverclyde area, according to Ofcom’s survey. According to current modelling projections, investment through the step change programme will result in access to super-fast broadband infrastructure for 96.3 per cent of premises in Inverclyde.
I remind members that there is a briefing—sponsored by Maureen Watt—for members in the Parliament next Wednesday, at which the programme will be gone through in detail and an announcement will be made on which areas will be the next to receive coverage. All MSPs and their researchers are welcome to attend.
I congratulate the Scottish Government on the high level of coverage that it has already negotiated for my own area of East Kilbride. However, can the Scottish Government instigate discussion with South Lanarkshire Council and BT to ensure 100 per cent availability of next-generation broadband to businesses and domestic properties, thus maintaining East Kilbride as a prime technological and industrial location?
I am happy to confirm that we will continue to have discussions with South Lanarkshire Council. As with all local authorities, South Lanarkshire Council is a key partner for the Government in the roll-out and delivery of broadband under the programme. The 32 Scottish local authorities contributed a total of £40 million to the programme and some 14 authorities chose to contribute additional funding to further broadband priorities in their areas. Although those did not include South Lanarkshire Council, we know that broadband is a key priority for the council and we will continue to discuss that with it in future.
The minister will be aware of the Welsh Government scheme that gives grants of up to £1,000 for those who can demonstrate that they are unable to achieve a broadband connection speed of greater than 2 megabits. Given that there will always be people at the end of the line who are very difficult to serve, will the Scottish Government consider a similar scheme at some time in the future?
We currently have our own schemes operating in Scotland. Alex Johnstone will be aware of community broadband Scotland, which is a £5 million initiative that seeks to support rural and remote communities to deliver their own broadband solutions. I am happy to send him more information about that programme, which he can share with constituents in particular communities. I am more than happy to discuss that with him further.
Police Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of Police Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S4O-02770)
I meet regularly with representatives of Police Scotland to discuss important issues around keeping people safe in Scotland. The Scottish Government values its good relationship with Police Scotland, and policing in Scotland is performing excellently. Crime is at a 39-year low, violent crime is down by half since 2006-07 and homicides are at their lowest since records began. The risk of being a victim of crime is falling and confidence in the police is high and rising. In stark contrast to England and Wales, we are protecting police numbers and have more than 1,000 extra police officers compared with the situation in 2007.
I received information from Police Scotland that reveals that in 2013-14 £9.3 million of funding for 377 police officers came from outside the Police Scotland budget, including £160,000 provided by Scottish Borders Council for four officers. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the City of Edinburgh Council has announced that it will withdraw funding for its officers. If other organisations follow suit, Police Scotland will have to find the money for 377 officers. Can the cabinet secretary reassure Parliament that funding for the 1,000 extra police officers secured by my party will be protected without the need for further cuts to policing?
Those matters were quite correctly raised by the late David McLetchie prior to the inception of Police Scotland. Discussions have taken place and are on-going between local authorities and Police Scotland. The particular issue of Edinburgh is being addressed by the chief constable, who is meeting with the leader and deputy leader of the council. As far as I am aware, no decision has been taken, and I am reassured by the chief constable that he is confident that the situation to which Mr Lamont referred will not arise.
Mr Lamont is quite correct that additional officers are provided by that funding—officers that a local authority requires and seeks to have in its area. There are on-going discussions regarding the priorities that local areas have, but neither Police Scotland nor I have any concerns that we face challenges to police numbers. The challenges to the police budget come not from within Scotland but from the huge cuts that are being imposed by Westminster. It is only through the good governance of this Administration that we are managing to avoid the debacle that is playing out in relation to police numbers south of the border.
Question 5, from James Dornan, has been withdrawn. The member has provided a satisfactory explanation.
Common Agricultural Policy Budget 2014 to 2020
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the agreed common agricultural policy budget 2014 to 2020 will have on South Scotland. (S4O-02772)
We are, of course, very disappointed by the agricultural budget allocation, which has left Scotland at the bottom of European Union funding tables for both pillar 1, which is the direct payments to farmers, and pillar 2, which is the rural development funding that supports our local communities. The United Kingdom Government let us down badly. It failed us in the budget negotiations in Europe, particularly when, unlike 16 other member states, it did not negotiate extra resources for rural development.
Various agricultural sectors are represented in South Scotland, from mainly dairy in the south-west to cereals and general cropping in the south-east, to name but a few, and all will suffer as a result of that dreadful decision.
Given that Ireland—a country of a similar size to Scotland—will receive twice as much pillar 1 funding as Scotland and seven times as much pillar 2 funding per hectare, can the cabinet secretary tell me how our farmers and rural communities across Dumfries and Galloway will stand to benefit from future CAP negotiations in an independent Scotland, in which we will be able to speak up for ourselves in Europe and will not have to let a United Kingdom Government with different priorities speak for us and therefore negotiate a comparatively worse deal for Scotland?
The funding formula that has been agreed in Europe for the agricultural budget that is in place for 2014 to 2019 applies to all member states. Had Scotland been an independent member state at the negotiations, the formula would have delivered an extra €1 billion—that is £850 million—between 2014 and 2019. Our initial estimates show that we have lost out on the addition of half a billion pounds to Scottish gross domestic product and around 2,500 jobs by 2019. That huge missed opportunity for Scotland comes from our not being a member state of Europe, and it shows why it is in the interests of every farmer and crofter and all our rural communities to vote yes in September.
Food Banks
To ask the Scottish Government whether it holds information on how many food banks there are and what assistance it can provide to reduce reliance on them. (S4O-02773)
We published a report on 17 December that gives an overview of food aid provision in Scotland. The report found that all the food bank providers that were asked had witnessed a sharp increase in demand and they named welfare reform, benefit delays, benefit sanctions and falling incomes as the main factors that are driving that increase.
We are doing what we can to limit the damaging effects of the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms on the most vulnerable by, for example, committing £20 million in the current financial year and up to a further £20 million in the next financial year to mitigate the effects of the so-called bedroom tax. With full powers over the economy and welfare in an independent Scotland, we would be able to do even more.
I accept that the most effective way in which to reduce the reliance on food banks in Scotland is to reverse much of the UK Government’s welfare reforms. However, will the Scottish Government consider working with food banks and other local partners to ensure that all those who present at food banks are given opportunities to receive advice about income maximisation and, for those who are unemployed, potential pathways to employment? I stress that the key role of food banks is to meet the most basic of human needs and that any support that is offered would need to be given sensitively and in a way that did not deter the most vulnerable from presenting at food banks in the first place.
Informed by our food aid provision study, we are exploring the best ways in which to ensure that all those who use food banks have access to appropriate advice and support. As part of our work to mitigate the worst impacts of welfare reform on those on the lowest incomes, we are providing an additional £7.9 million for advice and support services from 2012-13 to 2014-15.
The member touched on the sensitivity of the issue. Food banks are independent organisations and people are referred to them in moments of crisis, so we have to be careful about when advice is given and consider what advice is appropriate.
With all that in mind, I confirm that we are aware of the matter and want to ensure that everyone has their income maximised, but we still need to ensure that food banks are allowed to maintain their independence and their charitable aims.
Cromarty Bridge
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to repair the Cromarty bridge. (S4O-02774)
The Scottish Government is committed to refurbishing the Cromarty bridge over a number of years, and the feasibility of that is being assessed by Transport Scotland. A trial repair contract for the first five spans was completed in October 2011 and the repairs are being monitored to ascertain the scope of works for future repairs on the remaining 63 spans of the bridge.
Please be brief, Mr Gibson.
Are there lessons to be learned from the refurbishment of the dual-carriageway Kessock bridge to ensure that repairs are speeded up and disruption reduced for traffic going to Wick and Thurso?
Please be brief, minister.
The Cromarty bridge is technically very different from the Kessock bridge, as the member knows. The Cromarty bridge is a low-level, concrete, multispan bridge that has severe concrete deterioration, and the refurbishment that is proposed is to arrest that to improve the bridge’s durability and ensure its future use by the travelling public.
There is another lesson that we can learn. Even as the billions were starting to come into the United Kingdom Treasury’s coffers from North Sea oil, the bridge was a cheap and cheerful option that we are now having to remedy. That is another aspect of the lack of investment in our transport infrastructure over decades, which a yes vote in September can help to remedy.