Finance, Constitution and Economy
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions. To get as many people in as possible, I would prefer short and succinct questions and answers where possible, please.
Draft Budget (Publication)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it is delaying publishing details of the draft budget. (S4O-04548)
The United Kingdom spending review will not be published until 25 November 2015, therefore we will not know what block grant is available to the Scottish ministers and delivery partners until that date.
Under the current devolution settlement, around 80 per cent of the Scottish budget is directly determined by decisions taken in Westminster and the application of the Barnett formula. That means that we have no alternative but to await the outcome of the UK spending review before publishing the draft budget. That has, of course, happened before. The Scottish draft budget was delayed, with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, at both of the previous two UK spending reviews, in 2007 and 2010.
Scotland is not unique in being placed in this situation. Wales and Northern Ireland face the same problem. That is why on 21 August Jane Hutt, Arlene Foster and I jointly wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to express our dissatisfaction at his failure to consult the devolved Administrations before the chancellor’s announcement.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees that any delay in publishing the details of the draft budget will have a serious knock-on effect on our local authorities and other public service partners. I understand that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said:
“in terms of financial planning and decision making”
the timescale
“is not the ideal situation”.
It is vital that there is sufficient time for proper scrutiny of the draft budget proposals, particularly now that the Scottish Government will be able to set a Scottish rate of income tax for the first time. What reassurance and certainty can the cabinet secretary provide to people who deliver our crucial public services such as schools, hospitals and social care, who are being kept in the dark and are unable to plan their budgets for next year?
I acknowledge that the situation is not ideal, but it is not a situation of my making. As I said, we depend on the UK Government’s decisions for around 80 per cent of the Scottish budget, so it would be premature and foolish to publish our budget before having that information. I am pretty sure that that position is understood by our social partners. Indeed, I welcome COSLA’s approach in this respect. I thought that COSLA’s response to the likely timescale for the budget was entirely pragmatic and understandable.
Parliamentary scrutiny is a matter for parliamentary committees and is not for me to determine, but, as I have always done throughout my tenure as finance secretary, I will make myself available to interact with parliamentary committees in any way they choose as they scrutinise the Government’s budget.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the situation fundamentally shows that the Westminster budget system is hopelessly out of date, lacks respect for the Scottish Parliament and other Parliaments and needs to be seriously improved?
It is up to Westminster to decide on its budget process; that is not a matter for me. However, a key point that I make to Mr Mason is that the situation demonstrates that the scrutiny over financial issues that is habitually exercised in this Parliament is significantly greater and more thorough—I make no complaint about that; it is a good thing—than is the case in Westminster. The arrangements are entirely out of kilter because of that, and I hope that we can make available as much opportunity as we can do for this Parliament to scrutinise the Government’s budget, when it is published.
Havelock Europa (Potential Job Losses)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the potential economic impact on the area, what discussions it is having with Havelock Europa regarding potential job losses in Fife. (S4O-04549)
I share the member’s concern regarding developments in Havelock Europa and their potential impact on employees and their families and communities across Fife.
I can confirm that when the announcement was made, we immediately contacted the company to offer support for affected employees through our partnership action for continuing employment initiative—PACE. Our main economic development agency in the area, Scottish Enterprise, met the company on Thursday 3 September to discuss support for the business, to minimise any negative impact of the job losses.
I welcome the minister’s response and the support that has been offered. Havelock Europa’s announcement is another major blow to the Fife economy, following the recent closure of Tesco in Kirkcaldy, the closure of Tullis Russell and the job losses at BiFab. I am aware that the Scottish Government has been working closely with Fife Council in establishing a task force to deal with job losses at Tullis Russell in particular. How many of those who have lost their jobs in Fife have managed to secure further employment or training, and how much of the money that has been earmarked for the task force has been allocated?
I spoke this morning to David Ritchie, the chief executive officer of Havelock Europa, and he confirmed that the redundancies will take place in October. He highlighted the fact that the company currently has seven young people serving out their apprenticeships and said that they will not be affected.
I confirm that the Tullis Russell task force has met on five occasions—each meeting has been chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy and has been attended by representatives of Fife Council. The task force brings together all partners to support economic growth and respond to the serious challenges that Claire Baker rightly identifies.
An initial £6 million of financial support has been announced, and the task force has agreed indicative allocations for four strands: £1.5 million for supporting the workforce; £2 million for supporting business growth; £250,000 for community regeneration; and £2.25 million for business infrastructure and investment.
It is too early to say how many employees will have found work, but PACE statistics overall in Scotland state that 72 per cent of people who are made redundant find work or other positive opportunities within six months.
Scottish Rate of Income Tax
To ask the Scottish Government when it will take a decision on setting the Scottish rate of income tax. (S4O-04550)
The Scottish Government will propose a Scottish rate of income tax as part of its budget-setting process for 2016-17. I am considering the implications for the Scottish budget’s timetable presented by the announcement that the United Kingdom spending review will not report until late November.
The Sunday Times reported a devolved tax expert, Sharon Blain, as saying that many Scottish firms offering jobs to people in other parts of the UK are concerned that they cannot make assurances about tax rates. Can that evidence influence a decision being made earlier?
I think that people understand that tax decisions are taken at the appropriate time in the budget cycle of Administrations. I refer the member to all the reasons that I rehearsed with Siobhan McMahon a moment ago, such as the fact that 80 per cent of our budget comes in the form of the block grant from the UK Government. Equally, there are decisions that complement that in relation to taxes under our control, which people would expect to be viewed in the round, as part of the budget process.
We cannot compartmentalise these decisions. There is an interrelationship between the tax that we raise and the block grant that we receive from the United Kingdom Government. It is eminently sensible to undertake the process as a joint exercise, as part of the budget-setting process. That is exactly what the Scottish Government intends to do.
The Scottish Government’s stated ambition is to make Scotland the most competitive part of the United Kingdom as a place to do business. Does the cabinet secretary agree that setting an income tax rate for Scotland that is higher than that in the rest of the UK would be incompatible with that ambition?
The Government will take a decision on the rate of income tax that is applied in Scotland based on a range of considerations. Part of that discussion will be about the competitiveness of Scotland as a place to do business.
Of course, a range of factors influence and affect competitiveness. I would argue that the way in which we are able to integrate the economic development learning and support that is undertaken by the Scottish Government and other organisations works in a complementary way to ensure that we are an attractive place in which to invest. That is evidenced by the foreign direct investment assessment that is made by Ernst and Young, which regularly shows Scotland to be one of the key attractive destinations for foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom, behind only London and the south-east of England.
A variety of factors comes into the question. The Government will be mindful of all the issues when we come to our conclusions on the rate of income tax to apply.
European System of Accounts 2010
To ask the Scottish Government how it is addressing the concerns raised by the Office for National Statistics regarding the transition to the European system of accounts 2010 and whether local authorities will be fully compensated for any additional costs for their programmes. (S4O-04551)
I provided updates to Parliament on 2 February and 31 July regarding the ONS review of the Aberdeen western peripheral route. The ONS concluded that the AWPR should be classified to the public sector under the new Eurostat rules and guidance, which took effect in September last year. I instructed the Scottish Futures Trust to engage with the ONS to clarify interpretation of the rules that underpinned its decision and to consider the scope for making contractual changes to the project that could secure the ONS’s agreement that its reclassification to the private sector would be appropriate.
I am grateful to the ONS for prioritising that work. It has now advised that as a result of the SFT’s further engagement on the substance of its July decision, it wishes to refer a number of points to Eurostat for further consideration. That reflects the complexity of the issues with which we are dealing. Therefore, it will not be possible for the SFT to submit proposals for revisions to the AWPR contract until Eurostat has had the opportunity to respond to the points for clarification that are being raised with it, which is likely to take several weeks.
I previously advised Parliament that there would, while the ONS is undertaking its review, be some delays in reaching financial close on a number of projects within the hub programme because of the need to reflect on the ONS’s findings. In April, I authorised the SFT to implement initial changes to the hub model that are aimed at reinforcing a private-sector classification while recognising that further changes might be needed after the ONS reports. That work is proceeding well. The SFT has submitted proposals to the ONS, and it is likely that the ONS will be in a position to respond by late October or November.
I have given careful consideration to whether hub projects that are currently in the pipeline should, in the interim, be advised that they can reach financial close in advance of the ONS responding. In doing so, I recognise and share the concerns of project partners and other stakeholders. The Government remains committed to the hub programme. However, I must also take into account the risks that could arise as a result of taking projects to financial close in advance of the ONS reaching a conclusion. As a result, I do not expect it to be possible for those projects to reach financial close over the coming weeks. The SFT will engage closely with project partners to consider the implications for them and I will, of course, keep the position under close review.
I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but I do not take any comfort from it. Dumfries and Galloway Council has contractors that are waiting to sign contracts through the Scottish Futures Trust for the schools of the future programme, for example. One of those projects was supposed to start in the autumn of this year.
Can the cabinet secretary provide any comfort to local authorities regarding when the problems will be resolved? What will happen if the delays create additional costs that local authorities did not budget for in their original calculations?
I hope that Dr Murray understands that the decisions that we have to consider are a consequence of changes to the budgeting system that arose while the projects were under way. Many of the projects had been under development for some time. A range of SFT projects have reached financial close—Inverness College, the City of Glasgow College and the M8 improvements, for example—and have run their course, but we now have a new assessment of the rules that have emerged from the ONS and we have to comply with those rules.
As I indicated in my substantive answer, we now seek clarification from the ONS on some of those points; such is their complexity that the ONS seeks guidance from Eurostat, which supervises such issues across all European jurisdictions. Of course, other European jurisdictions are similarly affected by the decisions with which we are wrestling. I assure Dr Murray and all project partners that the Government is doing everything it can to resolve the issues timeously so that we can reap the benefits of the significant impact on the Scottish economy that comes from a strong pipeline of construction projects.
My understanding is that the new sick children’s hospital in Edinburgh and the Lothian health centre bundle reached financial close between September last year and the ONS ruling. Will both those projects be delayed? What will be the financial implications for those and other projects if agreement cannot be reached with the ONS and Eurostat?
The new sick children’s hospital has reached financial close and it is proceeding as a project. I expect that the ONS will review the classification of the sick children’s hospital as part of its forward work programme.
The Lothian health centre bundle has not reached financial close, so clearly it has been affected by the circumstances that I have outlined to Parliament.
The Government is, through the work of the SFT—it is occupying a significant amount of the time and focus of the SFT—trying to resolve the issues to enable us to pursue the pipeline of projects as quickly as possible.
Welfare Powers (Devolution)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the devolution of welfare powers. (S4O-04552)
I, other ministers and Scottish Government officials have regular discussions with the UK Government about the devolution of social security. I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Friday to discuss a range of issues to do with the wider transfer of powers. As Parliament has, we have made it clear that we do not believe that the Scotland Bill implements the Smith Commission recommendations in full, and that improvements should be made to those clauses at the report stage in the House of Commons.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Does he agree with former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s reported remarks that full implementation of the Smith Commission’s welfare proposals is
“being held back by the ‘dogmatism and resistance of Iain Duncan Smith’s Department for Work and Pensions, which seem determined for there to be a blanket imposition of welfare cuts across the entire UK’”?
I certainly acknowledge that co-operation from the Department for Work and Pensions is essential for the successful devolution of welfare powers. The Scottish Government has made a wide range of information requests to the DWP over a sustained period to assist us in implementation of the powers and responsibilities once they are legislated for. We are still waiting for that information to be returned to us. I encourage the DWP to co-operate actively with us in providing the information to enable us to exercise those responsibilities. That is crucial because it will enable us to make different and distinctive decisions on welfare from those of the United Kingdom, which is what people would expect from a process of devolution.
The cabinet secretary will know that, in addition to co-operation between Governments, the process of welfare devolution will also require co-operation between Parliaments. Does he agree that the model of a joint committee on welfare devolution is the right way forward and is a model that will be accountable to this Parliament and elsewhere on completion of the process of the current Scotland Bill?
Issues of parliamentary scrutiny are not really the business of ministers. It is up to Parliament to decide what it considers to be the most appropriate arrangements to make. Ministers in this Administration are certainly prepared to be held fully accountable to Parliament for the actions that we take in exercising our responsibilities, and we will do that in all circumstances.
Business Rates (Review)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review business rates. (S4O-04553)
The Scottish Government is keeping the business rates framework under close and active review ahead of the 2017 revaluation, building on our 20-point action plan to deliver improvements for ratepayers.
Scotland already delivers the most competitive business tax environment in the United Kingdom. We are funding around £598 million of rates relief this year, including the small business bonus scheme, which alone is estimated to reduce or remove rates bills for more than two in every five rateable premises.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Many people from the retail and hospitality sectors who are based in towns including Kirkcaldy, Cowdenbeath, Dunfermline, Alloa and Perth tell me that business rates are a major challenge to their remaining in the town centre. If the cabinet secretary is serious about town centre renewal, will he agree to look at business rates for town centres?
Jayne Baxter should look at the number of businesses in town centres that are benefiting from the Scottish Government’s existing rates relief regime. I will cite one example. Following the closure of the Vion factory, one suggestion that was made to me on promoting the recovery of the Broxburn area was the removal of business rates for companies in Broxburn High Street. When I investigated the matter, I found that only one business in that street was paying business rates, and all the rest were getting business rates relief.
There is extensive support for town centres as a consequence of the Government’s reduction in business rates. To be honest, I have never found the Labour Party to be particularly supportive of the small business bonus scheme; it has never been immediately obvious to me that it is something that the Labour Party values. If there is a change of heart going on in the party, that is of course welcome. I assure Jayne Baxter that there are extensive benefits for small companies the length and breadth of the country from the Government’s business rates regime.
Private Finance (Public Projects)
To ask the Scottish Government whether the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy will provide an update on what the cost will be of the recent ruling by the Office for National Statistics regarding the use of private finance for public projects. (S4O-04554)
In my earlier answer to Elaine Murray I went through a significant amount of the detail on that question, and I do not propose to repeat it.
I reiterate to Parliament that the conclusions of the Office for National Statistics will have no impact on the timetable for or cost of the Aberdeen western peripheral route project itself. More generally, as I noted in my earlier response, the Government and the Scottish Futures Trust will engage closely with project partners to consider the implications for them of the latest developments.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer, although there is perhaps an issue for the Presiding Officer to consider. Although I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for his detailed answer in response to the question from my colleague Elaine Murray, the amount of detail perhaps requires a parliamentary statement rather than just a parliamentary question. Certainly there are wider questions about the scrutiny and accountability of the Scottish Futures Trust—
And your question is?
The cabinet secretary will be aware that Crookfur primary school in my constituency and Barrhead school in another part of the local authority area will now be delayed because of his decision. The Eastwood health centre, although it is going ahead, will have to have its contract renegotiated.
Can the cabinet secretary promise the local authority, having encouraged it to go down the route of private finance through the Scottish Futures Trust, that there will be no additional cost to it as a result of the ruling?
First, I will address the procedural points that Ken Macintosh raised. In my answer to a parliamentary question on 31 July, I indicated that I would come back to Parliament with a statement once the session had resumed and when I had sufficient detail to hand. I do not have to hand all the detail that would inform that statement, but in order to give a substantial response to a question that has been properly lodged in Parliament I gave the volume of detail that I thought that was appropriate. It remains central to my plans to come back to Parliament with a statement once the further detail is to hand, and I will do that.
On the particular points that Mr Macintosh raised with regard to specific projects, we will—as I indicated—remain close to individual projects to discuss the implications of the ruling. We want to resolve the issues as quickly and timeously as possible, and we will work with individual bodies to ensure that that is the case.
Tourism (Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase tourism in the greater Glasgow and Clyde valley area. (S4O-04555)
We work with VisitScotland and the industry to increase tourism throughout the country, including in the greater Glasgow and Clyde valley area.
The minister may be aware that a group in Clydebank in my constituency is endeavouring to make contact with the owners of the QE2 to discuss the famous Clyde-built ship’s return to her home. If the ship was to become available, would the Government provide assistance to the group to bring the QE2 back to Scotland and more particularly to the Clyde?
I know that Mr Paterson and other MSPs—in the Labour Party, for example—have pursued the matter. I am pleased to say that representatives from the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, VisitScotland and Scottish Development International already sit on an officer working group that is chaired by Inverclyde Council to examine the possibility of bringing the QE2 back to the Clyde.
I should say that West Dunbartonshire Council is also represented on the group. The group is investigating the availability of the liner. Only once that has been ascertained and its condition taken into account could a feasibility study be undertaken of potential alternative uses.
Higher Education (Tuition Fees)
To ask the Scottish Government what cumulative loss to the block grant has resulted from the United Kingdom Government’s policy on tuition fees in higher education. (S4O-04556)
The Scottish Government believes that access to education should be based on the ability of a student to learn and not on their ability to pay. Although it is clear that UK Government policy decisions that result in reductions in spending in England impact the Scottish budget as a whole, the processes that are in place for calculating the Scottish block do not allow us to identify the direct impact of changes in one specific policy area. However, with a reduction in teaching grant spend in England of over £3 billion in real terms since 2011-12, the overall impact on the Scottish block grant has obviously been significant. For illustrative purposes, a population share of £3 billion would represent £298 million.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that that shows that, in a range of policy areas, a policy decision in England and Wales—even if it is opposed in Scotland, such as that on tuition fees—can have a material effect and impact on Scotland’s finances?
That is absolutely the case. One more recent example is the United Kingdom Government’s proposals for an apprenticeship levy. We do not have all the details of that, but I suspect that it will shift the burden of payment for apprenticeships from the public purse to individual companies and, as a consequence, the relevant budget in the UK will be reduced and there will be a consequential effect on the Scottish budget. That is one more reason why it would be folly for me to bring forward a budget before I see the outcome of the UK spending review in November. All those factors are relevant, and Linda Fabiani makes a substantial point in that respect.
Scottish Futures Trust (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy last met the Scottish Futures Trust and what issues were discussed. (S4O-04557)
I met the Scottish Futures Trust yesterday to receive an update on its engagement with the Office for National Statistics.
I acknowledge the cabinet secretary’s answers on the issue earlier. He will be aware that pupils and staff at St Fergus primary school in Paisley are currently waiting for the Scottish Futures Trust to deliver on its commitment to fund 50 per cent of a new school building. Both the local council and I want a new school to be in place as soon as possible. I therefore ask Mr Swinney to put on the record when the SFT is expected to meet its commitment to a new St Fergus school. Failing that, given that St Fergus primary school is in the most deprived community in the whole of Scotland, could the Scottish Government not provide £2.5 million from other capital sources for that vital project?
The answer to Mr Bibby’s first point is that the Scottish Futures Trust will proceed with the issues as soon as we can resolve the wider classification issues with the Office for National Statistics and now with Eurostat.
In relation to Mr Bibby’s second point, obviously a substantial allocation of capital expenditure is made available by the Government each year to local authorities. If memory serves me right, it totals in excess of £570 million in the current financial year. Obviously, local authorities are in a position to take forward the capital projects that they choose to take forward.
Draft Budget (Timetable)
To ask the Scottish Government what the implications are of a curtailed timetable for consideration of the Scottish budget. (S4O-04558)
Despite the implications of the 25 November United Kingdom spending review date being a full five weeks later than the equivalent 2010 publication, the Scottish Government and the national assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales were given no advance notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s intentions.
In the coming weeks, I will continue to press the UK Government for early engagement on the content of the spending review and I will consult the Finance Committee to agree a mutually acceptable timetable for this year’s Scottish budget process that balances the need for the Government to develop robust and credible budget proposals and the need for Parliament to have adequate opportunity to scrutinise them.
As Siobhan McMahon noted earlier, the curtailed timetable for publication of the budget puts pressure on financial planners at local council level. That will be compounded in areas such as South Lanarkshire by the cumulative effect of three years of cuts of £80 million under Mr Swinney’s budgets. Will the cabinet secretary be getting out of Edinburgh to meet councils and see at first hand the impact of previous allocations so that his financial planning can be better informed and it can ensure a fair allocation for South Lanarkshire?
If Mr Kelly cares to peruse the Government’s website, he will see that I get out of Edinburgh quite a lot. I was in Lochboisdale on Saturday on Government business; I was in Ullapool the other week; I was in Oban; and I will be in Coatbridge the week after—
We do not need the full itinerary, cabinet secretary.
I was in South Lanarkshire not that long ago. I am very happy to get out and about and understand the issues that affect local authorities. I had a productive meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities just last week on issues in connection with the Government’s budget.
Growth Fund (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises)
To ask the Scottish Government how many small and medium-sized enterprises it expects to help through the proposed growth fund. (S4O-04559)
We expect that a very significant number of small businesses will be helped.
I thank the minister for that very short and precise answer. Will the growth fund include microbusinesses? What allocation of funds will be set aside for microbusinesses?
I assure the member that the fund is intended for small businesses and, of course, microbusinesses are small businesses. The fund will provide microcredit finance up to £25,000, loans of up to £100,000 and equity investment of up to £2 million. It will support public and private sector partners to deliver that finance, generating a minimum of £100 million into the SME finance market over the next three years. That is a good thing, and I look forward to working with all members to make sure that we get the maximum possible benefit therefrom.
Elgin High School Replacement
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy has had with Moray Council and Elgin high school parent council regarding delays to the replacement of Elgin high school. (S4O-04560)
The Scottish Futures Trust, on behalf of the Scottish ministers, has engaged closely with Moray Council and other project partners to ensure that all possible steps are taken to progress the delivery of Elgin high school.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his response and the explanation given to the three earlier questions on the issue; I was not to know that they were to be asked.
The new Elgin high school enjoys cross-party support on Moray Council and the need for a replacement was identified 13 years ago. The school is now well past its serviceable life. The uncertainty has consequences for the budget that has been agreed with the contractor and for the maintenance costs of the current building. When does the cabinet secretary think that the project could start? What support will he give should the council face higher costs?
I have already indicated to Mary Scanlon and other members of Parliament that the Government will remain close to individual projects as we try to resolve the issues that affect all of them.
I should point out that many projects are not straightforward. The Elgin high school project was supposed to reach financial close in March 2014, but that was put back to June 2014 because the school roll had to be increased and there was a school estate review in Moray Council, which extended the timescale. Had the school proceeded when it was given the commitment of resources in September 2012, we might not be facing the issues that we are facing today in relation to the school.
I have had a letter from the leader of Moray Council and other political leaders in Moray. I have also had a letter from the chair of the parent council. I welcome those letters and will respond to them, setting out the details that I have shared with Mary Scanlon in Parliament today.
Economy (Performance)
To ask the Scottish Government how the Scottish economy is performing when measured against those of European Union member states. (S4O-04561)
Scotland’s economic growth last year was more than twice the European Union average growth rate and Scotland is outperforming the EU on a number of labour market indicators.
Today, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, gave his state of the union address. He talked about the collective responsibility of all European member states, not just in a moral sense but in an economic sense, and he highlighted that Greece, Italy and Hungary should not take the burden of the crisis that all European member states face right now. He also announced a £1.8 billion emergency fund—
Please ask a question.
—to help African countries to stabilise and to fight people smugglers. What action will Scotland take in ensuring that our economic growth is Europe’s economic growth and that it helps to address some of the crises and challenges that all member states are facing?
The developments that we can take forward in the Scottish economy and the way in which we can include opportunities for everyone who lives and works in Scotland to contribute to our economic wellbeing will be the most significant contribution that we can make to the European growth agenda.
HMNB Clyde
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the economic benefits of HMNB Clyde being designated the United Kingdom’s submarine centre of specialisation, with a projected increase of 1,500 jobs by 2022. (S4O-04562)
It is not possible for the Scottish Government to undertake a meaningful assessment of the decision to bring the new Astute class submarine fleet into service at HMNB Clyde until the UK Government sets out a detailed timetable and a breakdown of the Royal Navy personnel and others, including any dependants, who are expected to transfer to Scotland. Although we support investment in conventional defence capabilities, we are sceptical about the UK Government’s projections for future personnel numbers at Faslane given that previous promises of a major uplift in the number of Army personnel based in Scotland and investment in the defence estate, such as the promised new barracks at Kirknewton, have not materialised.
I know that Mr Swinney in character is not instinctively either churlish or acrid, so I hope that he can bring himself to share the predictably very positive local reaction to the proposal to upgrade Faslane, which is a vital economic driver in the local Dunbartonshire economy.
In order that maximum benefit can be derived from the £500 million investment by the UK Government, will the Scottish Government engage in discussions with the Ministry of Defence and the two local councils—West Dunbartonshire Council and Argyll and Bute Council—to ensure that road infrastructure and public transport are adequate to meet increased demands and that training and job opportunities for young people at Faslane are maximised?
I am glad that Miss Goldie thinks that she knows me so well. Some of my colleagues are disputing her assessment of me—they obviously spend more time with me.
I have made our position clear and Miss Goldie knows it well. We are perfectly happy to support investment in conventional defence capabilities, but we need the detail to be spelled out. To do that, we need the MOD to set out the information, and we will look at it and consider it. To be blunt, I have never found the MOD particularly open with its information in the great spirit of intergovernmental working. It is never terribly open about things. If Miss Goldie, in the inner channels that she has with the Conservative Government, can open up the MOD to dialogue, I will be happy to talk back.
Social Responsibility Levy
To ask the Scottish Government what its plans are for the social responsibility levy. (S4O-04563)
The Scottish Government’s position has always been that we will not introduce the social responsibility levy during the lifetime of the public health supplement and until the economic circumstances are correct. The public health supplement has now concluded and the Government will consider in due course whether there is a case to apply a social responsibility levy, for which legislative provision exists.
Given the significant shift in drinking patterns from on-sales to the off-sales trade, with 72 per cent now provided by the off-sales trade compared with 49 per cent in 1994, will the Scottish Government ensure that actions target where the major source of the problem of alcohol abuse lies?
Mr MacAskill marshals the significant pieces of evidence in relation to the argument. He has a long-standing and much respected reputation for confronting the issues and leading policy discussion on alcohol abuse and the consequent, knock-on behaviour that arises from it. I assure him that the evidence that he cited and the points that have been raised as a consequence will be part of the Government’s consideration of how to take the issue forward.
Austerity Measures (Economic Impact in Glasgow)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made to mitigate the economic impact of the United Kingdom Government’s austerity measures in Glasgow. (S4O-04564)
The Scottish Government is taking a range of actions to support people in Glasgow against the UK Government’s austerity agenda. We have supported more than 16,000 households in Glasgow in 2014-15, providing crisis grants and community care grants. Working in partnership with local government, we ensured that 24,000 discretionary housing payments were made in Glasgow last year, and in March 2015 over 97,000 households in Glasgow were benefiting from council tax reduction worth an estimated £1.3 million per week.
The economic impact on young people aged under 21 who may soon no longer be able to claim housing benefit under UK Government austerity plans will be devastating for many vulnerable young people and may lead to increased homelessness and vulnerability. Has the Scottish Government examined—or will it examine—the economic impact of that policy for my constituents in Glasgow? What scope is there to use the housing element of universal credit, a new power that is coming to the Parliament, to mitigate such effects in the face of significant austerity?
The Government will look to take all the measures that it can to mitigate the impacts of welfare reform on individuals in Scotland. There are some very serious implications of welfare reform, and the Government must exercise its responsibilities. However, it is important that I express to Parliament the cautionary note that, in my estimation, it will be impossible for the Government to mitigate all the effects of the austerity measures. Nevertheless, the Government will act as it has over the past few years in doing all that we can to support the most vulnerable people in our society.