Finance, Constitution and Economy
Good afternoon, everyone. The first item of business today is portfolio questions. In order to get in as many people as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and, indeed, answers to match.
Capital Budgets
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the autumn statement and comprehensive spending review will have on its capital budgets. (S4O-04904)
The autumn statement announcement confirmed that we face significant further austerity over the coming years. When the Conservative Party formed the coalition United Kingdom Government in 2010-11, the Scottish Government’s conventional capital budget was £3.293 billion. By 2019-20, the capital budget in Scotland will be £3.187 billion. Accounting for inflation, the capital budget will be £600 million less than it was in 2010-11.
The Scottish Government has indicated that it plans to make energy efficiency a national infrastructure priority, but it is not clear what that will mean in practice. Will the cabinet secretary outline whether there are plans to increase capital spending, as a result of Barnett consequentials, to make energy efficiency a national infrastructure priority? That would help to reduce climate change emissions and stop people suffering the ill-health effects of cold, poor-quality housing.
Ms McMahon makes a good and strong point about the multiple positive benefits of investment in energy efficiency measures, which tackle fuel poverty, improve individuals’ health and wellbeing and, as a consequence, make an economic contribution. I fundamentally accept and agree with the analysis that she has expressed.
The Government is making choices about the composition of our capital budget and I will announce that to the Parliament next Wednesday. We will also set out our thinking on the national infrastructure plan, which is the means by which we gather together the Government’s investment and infrastructure priorities over a longer period to ensure that we have a strong pipeline of investment activity over a number of years.
Budget (West Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact its budget will have on the economy of the West Scotland region. (S4O-04905)
The Scottish Government will continue to support the west of Scotland through a wide range of programmes and public expenditure. One example is that, on 26 November, I informed the Parliament that investment through the hub programme in the Inverclyde care home, Our Lady and St Patrick’s high school and Barrhead high school could proceed. Those programmes will make an enormous difference in their communities, not just through the jobs that their construction will bring but through the health and education benefits that they will bring to local people.
The Government will publish its future spending plans on 16 December.
According to the Office for National Statistics, since 2009, there has been a reduction of 62,000 public sector jobs in Scotland, many of them in the West Scotland region, and there are now estimates that around 30,000 public sector jobs could be lost in Scotland by 2020. Unison Scotland has rightly said that we cannot keep salami slicing public sector jobs and Audit Scotland has highlighted the serious impact that that is having.
Will Mr Swinney agree to Unison’s reasonable request and work with it to set up a task force to look at the future of public sector employment in Scotland and support the public sector workers who face losing their jobs?
The first point that I make to Mr Bibby is that I strongly believe—and I am proud to say that I am in a Government that takes the same view—that investment in public services and in the work of public servants is wise investment for the wellbeing of our country, so I very much regret that we have lost public sector employment during the past five years. However, I am sure that Mr Bibby will understand and accept that the Government has to live within its means and we have had to wrestle with the challenges of the austerity agenda from the United Kingdom Government.
The valuable point that Mr Bibby makes was certainly made by the trade unions that I met this morning at the biannual meeting of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and trade unions with the First Minister and me. Many of the aspirations that Mr Bibby set out were expressed by the trade unions, which are willing to work to ensure that we create the strongest possible platform for public sector employment and public services within Scotland, and I very much welcome that approach.
I say to Mr Bibby that the Government has taken an approach since 2008, or perhaps 2009, whereby we have had a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies within the public sector. It has been an important feature of the relationship that we have had with the public sector workforce that we have worked with them to find the most effective way of wrestling with the financial challenges that we face.
One of the areas where local authorities are under massive pressure is that of health and social care, referring in particular to the growing pressures on social care budgets. [Interruption.] The Deputy First Minister has protected the national health service. Does he recognise that social care should be funded as part of that protection?
That was not specifically about the west of Scotland, but you may answer, Deputy First Minister.
I am certain that there is health and social care in the west of Scotland, if I can help Mr Rowley in that respect. I will manage his telephone calls in the future, too, if that would be helpful.
Mr Rowley makes a substantive point. When citizens require the support of our public services, we have to ensure that they are supported in the most appropriate circumstances and surroundings, and that they are given the most appropriate type of care. As we know, there are individuals who are cared for in a care setting that is not appropriate to their needs. That may well be an acute hospital, which they do not need to be in. We have to be careful to focus on the needs of the individual citizens of Scotland to ensure that they are supported and cared for in exactly the right circumstances.
I am sure that some of these issues will be the subject of this afternoon’s debate, which will be interesting to observe. That approach and that distinction—whether in the west of Scotland or anywhere else in Scotland—are important points for Mr Rowley to highlight.
Yes—it is helpful if members stick to the question asked, please.
Renewable Heat Incentive
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government on its plans to reduce the renewable heat incentive by 40 per cent. (S4O-04906)
I have been engaged in extensive communications with the UK Government over a prolonged period, calling for it to continue the renewable heat incentive and give confidence to householders, businesses and the wider heat market.
There has been no detailed discussion about the £700 million efficiency in the budget over the period to 2021, which I presume the member’s figure of 40 per cent refers to, nor about the detail of changes to the RHI, regardless of the fact that I have consistently requested that.
What are the knock-on effects of the UK policy change on the Scottish Government’s investment in energy efficiency schemes such as the home energy Scotland renewables loan scheme and other measures aimed at tackling fuel poverty?
The announcement that was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot aid investment, because it lacks what is required. A parliamentary statement should be characterised by clarity. Instead, Mr Osborne’s statement, in so far as it related to the RHI, was characterised by opacity. It is as though, instead of devising a parliamentary statement, he was making up a crossword clue whose purpose was to guide people away from the actual answer and meaning. We are therefore pressing the UK Government for clarity.
I am pleased that, as far as the RHI scheme is concerned, the amendments will not take effect until 2017 and that more than £45 million has been paid to accredited installations in Scotland since the introduction of the RHI in November 2011.
I thank the minister for that useful answer. In the opportunity that exists between now and 2017, what new schemes might be brought forward? There is general agreement that renewable heat is the missing link in our energy and heat, not just in terms of green energy but also in terms of green jobs and apprenticeships.
Sarah Boyack raises a very good point. Just yesterday I had the privilege of opening a brand-new waste-to-energy scheme providing heat at the Borders College campus in Galashiels. That is an excellent scheme, where the costs are clear and guaranteed. We also have a low-carbon infrastructure transition scheme, with investment of £76 million or thereby, and we have made further investments.
I will give some specific examples in response to the question. We are seeking to incentivise geothermal solutions, one potentially in Aberdeen, serving the proposed new conference centre there. We are also looking at water-source heat pumps. Although we are seeking to bring forward all those schemes, we do not have the legal competence or responsibility for energy and therefore we are seeking to use the limited budgets that we have to best effect for demonstrator projects. Nonetheless, we are taking forward schemes that I hope will receive the approval of Ms Boyack and members across the chamber.
Aberdeen City Region Deal
To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to support the Aberdeen city region deal bid since it received the statement of intent. (S4O-04907)
Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council submitted the statement of intent to both the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments on 4 September. Since then, Scottish Government officials have been working closely with both councils and the UK Government to provide support as the councils develop their proposals.
The Scottish Government cities team has met regularly with representatives from both councils. Officials from a number of policy areas, including housing, innovation, digital connectivity and Transport Scotland, have provided support and have been involved in detailed discussions around the proposals. The Scottish Government continues to work closely with both councils as the proposals evolve.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer referenced the negotiations on the city region deal in his autumn statement and spending review, which was welcome. He then went on to make a decision regarding carbon capture and storage funding, which in effect sabotaged one of the north-east’s key projects.
Given the economic importance of the north-east to Scotland’s economy, will the finance secretary back the city region deal in his budget statement next week and, unlike the UK Government decision, will he make sure that his budget decisions complement and support the various strands of the city region deal rather than undermine them?
I certainly agree with Alison McInnes’s point on the importance of taking complementary decisions. I am in complete agreement with her about the disappointing Peterhead decision. It is a regrettable decision on a technology that could have created—and could still create—a global opportunity for Scotland. However, that possibility has undoubtedly been interrupted by the arbitrary spending review decision.
As I have indicated to Alison McInnes, the Government is supportive and sympathetic towards the Aberdeen city region deal and we are working constructively with the two councils and with the local business community to take it forward. It is a welcome step that Sir Ian Wood has chosen to give formal leadership to the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire business community in recent days.
The city region deal is a joint venture with the UK Government, so we will work collaboratively with the UK Government to advance the proposals to ensure that Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire continue to make a strong contribution to the Scottish economy.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s words. Can he confirm when he anticipates the Scottish Government, together with the UK Government, making a decision on the city region deal proposals?
I cannot give Mr Macdonald a definitive answer. As I have just indicated to Alison McInnes, we are pursuing the proposals jointly with the UK Government. It is better if we take them forward in a spirit of partnership and collaboration, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. However, we will make sure that progress is timely and that any announcement is made as quickly as possible.
Budget 2016 to 2020 (Public Sector Jobs and Services)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the reductions in its resource budget from 2016 to 2020 announced in the autumn statement and spending review will have on public sector jobs and services. (S4O-04908)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s continued programme of austerity of choice not necessity will see Scotland’s fiscal resource departmental expenditure limit budget—the budget that is responsible for day-to-day spending in Scotland—decrease in real terms by almost 6 per cent over the course of the next spending review period. The Scottish Government will continue to strive to minimise the impact of the austerity agenda on jobs, investment and services in Scotland.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that continued year-on-year cuts to Scotland’s funding, imposing UK austerity, ultimately can only result in a serious decline in the quality of public services and the breadth of those services, as well as the loss of many important services that do not have a statutory underpinning?
Clearly, significant challenges arise as a consequence of the continued restraint on public expenditure, which affects the ability to invest in and to develop the public services for which we are responsible.
One of the objectives that the Scottish Government has always maintained in this climate of austerity has been to protect jobs, investment and services in Scotland. That may involve us delivering services in a different fashion to the way in which we have delivered them in the past, but that may be necessary to ensure that access to services is not damaged for members of the public—the people we are elected to serve—as a consequence of the situation.
The fiscal environment in which we operate is very constrained. It requires us to be prepared to embrace reform in our public services, but the Scottish Government will be determined to protect jobs, investment and services in Scotland throughout that journey.
The Deputy First Minister will be aware that local government’s share of the budget has dropped from 29 per cent in 2011-12 to 25 per cent in 2014-15. With departmental spending for health and, as I understand it, the police protected, what level does he envisage local government’s share will be for the coming year?
I am not at all sure of the basis of the numbers that Jackie Baillie cited to Parliament, but I will look carefully at the points that she made. The Scottish Government has very effectively protected local government during a period of significant restraint. I think that Jackie Baillie and her colleagues agree with the Government’s decisions about investing in the health service. If they do, they will find that, once the increases in expenditure have been delivered to the health service, local government’s share of the remaining budget has increased.
I am not quite sure what point Jackie Baillie is trying to make if she agrees with the Government on health expenditure. She is possibly making the point that she wants me to spend the same money twice. That, of course, is the Labour Party’s familiar approach, but it is not a way to balance the books. I can spend the money only once and, over time, the Scottish Government has delivered a strong and sustainable settlement for local authorities in Scotland.
The cabinet secretary said that he valued public sector workers and that their jobs would be protected. Will the Scottish Government budget recognise and compensate councils, which, under the Scottish National Party, have suffered real-terms cuts double those that the UK imposed on Scotland, as shown recently by a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing?
I do not have much to add to the answer that I gave to Jackie Baillie. The Labour Party’s condition of wishing to spend the same money twice must be endemic across its members.
I am sure that, even if Jackie Baillie does not agree with me, Mr Pentland must agree that the Government was right to invest in the health service. I thought that the Labour Party was supportive of health investment. If it is not, that is a revelation but, assuming that it supports us on that point, I make the point that local government’s share of the remaining budget has increased under the Government. That represents the strong and emphatic commitment that the Scottish Government has made to local authority spending in Scotland.
Question 6, in the name of Jenny Marra, has not been lodged. A less than satisfactory explanation has been provided.
Non-profit-distributing Programme
To ask the Scottish Government whether its non-profit-distributing programme is regarded by the Office for National Statistics as a public sector programme. (S4O-04910)
I explained in my statement to Parliament on 26 November 2015 that a rapid reversal of the Office for National Statistics public classification of the Aberdeen western peripheral route project under the revised Eurostat rules would not be possible. However, I have asked the Scottish Futures Trust to continue to review options for the potential amendment of the AWPR project and other NPD projects. That follows the welcome decision by the Office for National Statistics on the revised hub model and confirmation that the projects that the model delivers will be classified to the private sector.
There will be no impact on the cost or the delivery of the Aberdeen western peripheral route project or, indeed, other NPD projects that are currently in consideration.
The finance secretary and his party have regularly claimed that NPD and hub projects are different from the private finance initiative and public-private partnerships. Meanwhile, the ONS has said that they are private sector projects—an announcement that the cabinet secretary warmly welcomed. Another issue with the non-profit-distributing model is that it distributes profit. Is it not time that the cabinet secretary apologised for misleading Parliament and the electorate because NPD is just PFI with a more cuddly name?
There is nothing cuddly about Mr Findlay or his questions.
I am mightily confused by Mr Findlay’s question. I have always made plain—I have presented information to the Office for National Statistics and I have been completely open with Parliament—the objective of securing a private sector classification for the NPD projects and the hub programme for the simple reason that it delivers additionality to the economy.
Creating additionality through our capital programme creates jobs and investment. A recent Scottish Parliament information centre briefing indicated the scale and impact of the Government’s capital programme on the creation of jobs and the growth of Scotland’s economy. The big difference between NPD and PFI is the concept of profit capping, which this Government introduced to ensure that the rampant PFI profiteering over which the Labour Party presided was brought to an end. The fact that the ONS has now decided that those projects are to be classified to the public sector rather refutes the accusation that Mr Findlay has levelled at me.
I do not think that I can thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I suppose that I must do so out of courtesy. I agree with my colleague Dr Findlay—er, Mr Findlay—
Members: Oh!
Moving swiftly on, can we have a question, Dr Simpson?
I am sorry—it is an anticipatory reflection of Mr Findlay’s intellect.
I want to ask the cabinet secretary seriously about the ONS decision. I am quite concerned about how he will construct the 20 per cent charity element. Will he give us an early indication of how that charitable input will be dealt with? It must be in the private sector, so it cannot be a Government organisation. Is the Government going to appoint the people in it? Can we get some more detail from the cabinet secretary, or at least an indication of when he might give us more detail?
We were on the verge of hearing about Dr Findlay’s casebook just then.
I ask Dr Findlay—sorry, Dr Simpson; I am at it as well. [Laughter.] Heaven forfend that Mr Findlay should ever have to attend to me in a doctor’s capacity. I would put my faith in Dr Simpson before Mr Findlay on that point.
I will move on to answer the question, Presiding Officer.
Briefly, if you would.
Dr Simpson raises a substantive issue. For the charitable organisation to satisfy the test that is required of it under the ONS decision, it must operate outwith the scope, intervention and direction of Government, and it must satisfy the requirements of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. The process is under way to secure that classification, and I am happy to provide Parliament with an update on the governance and regulatory arrangements.
I hope that those two key principles—that the organisation must act utterly independently of Government—which I suspect means that the Government will not be able to appoint members, so we will have to work through the details of all that—and that it must satisfy OSCR’s requirements—will address some of Dr Simpson’s points. I will of course put more details on the public record when those are to hand.
Question 8, in the name of Annabel Goldie, has not been lodged. Apparently, a satisfactory explanation has been provided.
Scotland Bill
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government on the progress of the Scotland Bill. (S4O-04912)
The Scottish Government has frequent contact with the United Kingdom Government on the progress of the Scotland Bill. Most recently, I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday to continue detailed discussions on the substantive elements of the fiscal framework.
I understand that negotiations are on-going. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that many people are still unclear about what the impact will be on Scotland’s finances? Can he confirm whether the Scottish Parliament will have adequate time to scrutinise the proposals before the next Scottish Parliament elections?
The Smith commission required the two Governments to agree to a fiscal framework, and those discussions are on-going. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I have now had five meetings to try to agree the details of the fiscal framework. Those discussions are on-going and I expect further sessions to be set up to agree the details of the framework.
I can assure Sandra White that the Parliament will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise the fiscal framework once it has been developed in the intergovernmental negotiations, which is what was required of us by the Smith commission. If the Parliament is to be in a position to agree a legislative consent motion on the Scotland Bill, we will have to have it in front of the Parliament by 12 February 2016. The Government has made it clear that we will propose a motion for legislative consent only if we have an acceptable fiscal framework available to put to the Parliament. Essentially, that task has to be completed by 12 February 2016, which provides the Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the fiscal framework before any legislative consent motion is considered.
I think that we all agree that the fiscal framework is central and that indexation of the block grant adjustment for income tax is pretty central to that. Does the Deputy First Minister acknowledge that the majority of academic experts seem to be saying that the best and most risk-free option for Scotland is indexing for changes in the tax base per head? I tend to agree with that. Does he?
I agree very much with the point that Mr Chisholm made. Sandra White commented that not much detail about the fiscal framework is available, but detail about the fiscal framework cannot be available until it is agreed. However, there have been a number of very substantial contributions to the debate from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Professor Anton Muscatelli, Professor David Bell and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I think that they have provided very good, dispassionate commentary on the issues that are at stake and on what I consider to be the crucial issue, which is the block grant adjustment for income tax. Mr Chisholm asked me whether I agreed with him that indexed deduction per capita is the best way to proceed with that, and I am very happy to confirm to Parliament that I do.
United Kingdom Spending Review 2015 (Public Sector Finances)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the recent spending review will have on public sector finances in Scotland. (S4O-04913)
As outlined previously, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spending plans for the period 2016-17 to 2019-20 mean that the Scottish Government’s total discretionary budget will, by 2019-20, be around 12.5 per cent, or £3.9 billion, lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11.
Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the Scottish Futures Trust has delivered massive improvements in value for money compared with Labour’s discredited private finance initiative? Can he confirm that, in line with figures published this morning, the number of pupils in schools with poor or bad conditions is continuing to fall under the Scottish National Party Government?
I can confirm that point. The improvement in the school estate that was recorded in the statistics published this morning is very welcome and an endorsement of the investment programme that the Government has taken forward. While I have been the finance minister, we have faced the accusation that not a brick would be laid in the school building programme. That was the accusation that the Labour Party put to us, but of course the school estate is now significantly improved as a consequence of our programme.
That was in the last session of Parliament.
Dr Simpson is shouting at me that that was in the last session, but I have a long memory and I remember all the things that we have been accused of by the Labour Party. [Interruption.]
Dr Simpson, this is not an exchange.
We have, of course, ensured that the school estate has been significantly improved by the well-co-ordinated programme of the Scottish Futures Trust, which has delivered real value for money for the taxpayer in Scotland.
Dumfries and Galloway Council (Budget 2016-17)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy has had with Dumfries and Galloway Council regarding its budget for 2016-17. (S4O-04914)
I have not met Dumfries and Galloway Council specifically to discuss its budget for 2016-17, but I have had a series of meetings with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to negotiate the overall level of the 2016-17 local government finance settlement, which I will announce alongside the 2016-17 Scottish draft budget next Wednesday, 16 December.
Dumfries and Galloway Council had prepared a three-year budget that planned for cuts of £12.5 million in 2016-17. The council has now been advised to expect cuts of between 4 and 5 per cent, which would equate to £20 million to £25 million-worth of cuts. What services does the cabinet secretary suggest that Dumfries and Galloway Council stops providing?
I recommend that we all address the financial realities of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review—that is the best thing that I can suggest we all do. The Government will lay out the set of decisions that we have taken on the utilisation of public resources. We will take those decisions consistent with the values of the Government and with the commitments that I have made to Parliament in the course of my answers this afternoon. We will do that in a fashion that is designed to protect public services and to ensure that we deliver sustainable public services in our localities. To reiterate one of the points that I made in an earlier answer, that may involve change and redesign of services—that is something that we have to contemplate as a society.
Oil and Gas Exploration (Fiscal Measures)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the introduction of fiscal measures to promote oil and gas exploration. (S4O-04915)
The Scottish Government recognises that exploration in the North Sea is at historically low levels and that much more needs to be done to support that activity. We have long called for substantial reform in the oil and gas fiscal regime and we have successfully argued for the introduction of an investment allowance and a reduction in the headline tax rate. We are, however, disappointed at the lack of support for exploration, and we continue to make the case for the need of further fiscal reform. The Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, outlined those concerns to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a letter ahead of the autumn statement, which asked him to outline his commitment to further support for the sector as well as provide a firm timetable for policy reforms. Next week, on 16 and 17 December, I will attend a meeting in London of the oil and gas MER—maximising economic recovery—UK forum to discuss the outlook for the sector, which will touch on issues that relate to exploration.
At a time when we should be encouraging exploration to support the oil and gas industry, the UK Government has sat on its hands. Will the minister do everything possible to ensure that the chancellor gets a grip, follows Norway’s example and provides exploration incentives to secure jobs in Aberdeen, the north-east and beyond?
Kevin Stewart makes a good point. Oil & Gas UK has estimated that substantial exploration potential remains in the North Sea. Its estimate is that between 2,000 million and 6,000 million barrels of oil have yet to be discovered.
Mr Stewart refers to Norway; it was Norway’s tax breaks for exploration that, in part, led to the discovery of the Johan Sverdrup field, which is described by some as the “crowning achievement” of Norway’s
“successful rejuvenation of exploration in more mature areas”.
It holds 2.35 billion barrels of oil reserves and is forecast to produce more oil than the whole UK sector by 2025. Its discovery was a result of Norway’s progressive exploration policies.
Last week, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee took evidence from the oil and gas industry. We were told by the industry that, contrary to the view of Mr Stewart, thanks to the actions of the UK Government, fiscal measures are now a long way down the list of its concerns.
There is, however, a greater concern—the on-going campaigns for disinvestment in fossil fuels that we have seen on university campuses and elsewhere. Will the minister agree with me that such campaigns are unhelpful and wrong-headed and that they risk undermining the future of what is still a very important industry to Scotland and one that supports tens of thousands of jobs?
To address the first part of Mr Fraser’s remarks, I am extremely well aware that the industry’s primary focus at the moment is to achieve cost reduction without prejudicing health and safety and to achieve greater efficiency. No one is more aware of that than I am, and I shall be discussing it at a number of meetings in Aberdeen on Monday with senior industry figures and working with them, as we always do.
Secondly, I think that any kind of political point scoring at this time, when so many people’s jobs and families’ livelihoods are at stake, is really not very clever and not very helpful. This Government supports the people in the oil and gas industry in Scotland. Most of us do. The Green Party does not, but its members are not here this afternoon, so we will not hear from them. I think that we can do without the gesture politics that the member refers to.
Question 13, in the name of Liam McArthur, has not been lodged. An explanation has been provided.
Crown Estate (Fort Kinnaird)
To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on its finances of not devolving the Crown Estate’s share in Fort Kinnaird retail park. (S4O-04917)
The Fort Kinnaird retail park provides a current revenue to the Crown Estate of around £4 million a year. That sum, which, under the terms of the Smith agreement, should be available to the Scottish Government to spend, will instead be available to the United Kingdom Government. In addition, the Crown Estate’s share of the capital value of Fort Kinnaird retail park, which was £103 million in 2014-15, will also be under the control of the UK Government. By comparison, the total capital value of the entire Crown Estate portfolio of all other assets in Scotland was £261.5 million in 2014-15.
Fort Kinnaird is highly valued by my constituents as a shopping and entertainment centre. Will the cabinet secretary comment on how he sees the local community benefiting if Fort Kinnaird is not devolved along with the rest of the Crown Estate?
Mr Beattie highlights an important local issue. I am certainly concerned that there will be no direct financial benefit to the community from Fort Kinnaird if it continues to be excluded from the transfer, which, I believe, undermines the principle of devolving the management and revenue of Crown Estate economic assets in Scotland, which was a clear recommendation of the Smith commission.
Kinship Care Funding
To ask the Scottish Government what representations the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy has received from the Minister for Children and Young People regarding kinship care funding. (S4O-04918)
I regularly speak to all my colleagues about matters that affect the wellbeing of the people of Scotland, particularly our most vulnerable children. We are investing £10.1 million a year to enable local authorities to pay eligible kinship carers the same allowances as they pay to foster carers to support the children in their care. That is tackling inequality and poverty head-on for some of Scotland’s most vulnerable children and families.
I would not disagree with that policy intent. However, did the Minister for Children and Young People draw to the cabinet secretary’s attention the fact that Glasgow City Council, which has 32 per cent of all kinship carers living in its area, will receive only 15 per cent of the funding allocation that is made to councils? Did she point out to him that that underfunding of kinship care by the Scottish Government will put pressure on other important services in the city?
The cabinet secretary suggested to my colleague Dr Murray that cuts to local government budgets were a result of decisions elsewhere. However, the underfunding of kinship care in Glasgow is caused by a Scottish Government decision. Will the cabinet secretary think again?
I acknowledge the seriousness of this issue and the concerns that Patricia Ferguson has on the matter. However, the allocations to each local authority were made using an established formula that was agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities when all 32 Scottish local authorities were still members. Therefore, this has not been solely a Scottish Government decision. I have made it clear to Parliament over the years that the funding formula that is agreed with local government is just that—it is agreed with local government—and it drives some of the decisions that need to be taken.
I hear the representations that Patricia Ferguson is making, but the situation is the product of a funding formula that has been agreed to by local government in Scotland.
Small Business Bonus Scheme
To ask the Scottish Government how many businesses have received support from the small business bonus scheme. (S4O-04919)
The latest official statistics show that an estimated 99,500 business properties benefit from paying zero or reduced business rates as a result of the Government’s small business bonus scheme, saving businesses across Scotland an estimated £174 million in 2015-16.
I welcome the news that many businesses in Scotland are benefiting from the scheme. What further action can be taken to support Scotland’s thriving small businesses?
One clear way in which all of us can help Scottish small businesses is to pledge support for the Scottish Government’s assurance that the small business bonus will be maintained not just for the duration of this parliamentary session, which is nearly over, but for the duration of the next session, if we have the privilege of doing that.
If all parties could unite in confirming that the small business bonus will be a fixture free of party politics and will continue to 2021, taking it out of the realms of partisan party politics, that more than anything else would provide the assurance and long term stability that small businesses in Scotland require.
I will allow a brief supplementary from Kenny Gibson.
The minister will be aware that the Federation of Small Businesses said that, at the peak of the recession, one in six small businesses would have gone bust without the small business bonus scheme. What would have been the impact on the Scottish economy if that had happened, as Labour recommended when it voted against the small business bonus scheme?
Please give a brief answer too, minister.
The impact would have been disastrous.
Many thanks for that brevity. That concludes portfolio questions. We shall now move to the next item of business.
Next
Points of Order