Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03229)
I understand that Jeremy Hunt will shortly announce in the House of Commons that the United Kingdom Government intends to impose a new contract on junior doctors. I want to make it clear to the chamber that that will not apply in Scotland. This is not in my view the way to treat health professionals, so we will not be imposing a contract. Instead, we will continue to work with our junior doctors and other national health service staff in the best interests of patients.
Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Labour will protect education spending in real terms for the whole of the next session of Parliament. Will the First Minister do the same if she is re-elected?
We will set out our full plans for education and other matters in our manifesto, but I just point out to Kezia Dugdale the record of this Government so far. According to the most recent published statistics, average spend per primary pupil has increased by 11 per cent or £496 since 2006; average spend per secondary school pupil has increased by 10 per cent or £618 since 2006-07; and total revenue spending on schools has risen by £208 million. That is the record of this Scottish National Party Government, and we will continue to act to protect the numbers of teachers in our schools and to address the attainment gap. I am happy to ask the people of Scotland in a few weeks’ time to judge us on that record.
Here is the record of the SNP Government: 4,000 fewer teachers; 152,000 fewer college students; and the gap between the richest and the rest as wide as it has ever been. I listened very carefully to the First Minister, and there was no commitment to protect education spending in real terms for the next five years. We can therefore take from that response that education spending will be cut again, with even more severe consequences.
This afternoon, SNP-controlled Perth and Kinross Council will hold a special budget meeting to discuss the cuts that it is being forced to make because of the choice that the First Minister has made. Perth and Kinross is the SNP-controlled council in John Swinney’s backyard. I have here the planned cuts—186 pages of them—and they include cuts to childcare, cuts to help for those with additional support needs, cuts to early years teachers and maths and cuts to English teachers. Page after page contains a warning of SNP cuts that will harm our children’s future. That is the reality from one of the First Minister’s own councils. When will she stop pretending that her budget will not harm our children’s future?
As Kezia Dugdale is aware, we have put forward a settlement for local authorities that—yes—involves a 2 per cent reduction in their total revenue spending, but that reduction is offset by the £250 million that we are investing from the national health service into social care. That settlement, which has now been accepted by all of the local authorities in Scotland, enables us to protect households by freezing the council tax; to protect the number of teachers in our schools; to invest in and expand social care; and, from October this year, to ensure that all social care workers are paid a living wage.
That is the reality of the Government’s position. It should be seen, of course, in the context of a budget cut from Westminster that has been imposed on this Government—a budget cut that Labour, when it campaigned so vigorously with the Conservatives, was quite happy to see imposed on this Parliament.
That ship sailed the moment Nicola Sturgeon stood side by side with the Tories last week to impose cuts on our community. [Interruption.]
Order.
Let us be clear about what these cuts really mean. The document that I am holding from Perth and Kinross Council—an SNP council—says that the council is cutting the entire budget for supply teachers. I quote from the SNP council paper directly on the consequences of that cut:
“classes may have to be sent home and possibly schools closed”.
That is the scale of the cuts that the First Minister is forcing on schools.
Today, the Scottish Parliament will have to set the Scottish rate of income tax for the very first time. The First Minister will have another chance to keep the anti-austerity promise that she made to stop the cuts to schools and other vital public services. For years, she has argued that more powers would mean fewer cuts. Today the First Minister will have the chance to use those powers to stop those cuts. Will she finally take it?
In the interests of accuracy, the ship of Labour campaigning hand in hand with the Tories has not sailed but has been sunk—and it has sunk Scottish Labour completely.
Let us turn to Labour’s policy of raising tax—[Interruption.]
Order. Stop heckling the First Minister.
Let us turn to Labour’s policy of raising the basic rate of income tax for every worker in our country earning £11,000 and above.
Liar. [Interruption.]
Order.
Members: Withdraw.
Presiding Officer, we know how desperate the Labour Party is by the volume of the insults that Labour members like to sling across the chamber. [Interruption.]
Order.
There is a debate to be had in Scotland about tax, but it should be a proper, grown-up debate about tax. Labour’s policy is written on the back of a fag packet. The lack of detail is embarrassing, but then it is a policy put forward by a party that knows that it is 100 million miles away from being a credible Opposition, let alone a credible alternative Government. It is a dishonest policy, because Labour knows that it would hit the low paid, which is why Labour is suggesting a rebate but has not been able to answer a single question about how that would work in practice. It is also a policy that, in its presentation by Labour, is out of touch and callous.
Kezia Dugdale stands there as someone who, like me—[Interruption.]
Order.
Like all of us, Kezia Dugdale has a decent salary, yet she suggests that increasing the tax bill of the low paid by 5 per cent somehow does not matter. I say to her that she should tell that to someone who is struggling to make ends meet or to someone who has suffered years of pay freezes and is counting every penny. It is not fair and it is not progressive to shift the burden of Tory austerity on to the shoulders of the low paid. That is probably why less than one in three voters backs Labour’s policy.
Kezia Dugdale rose—
One moment, Ms Dugdale, please sit down. I already warned the chamber about heckling the First Minister or anyone else who is speaking. A remark came across the chamber. I did not quite hear it but, from the reaction in the chamber, a word was used that is clearly unparliamentary. I will review the Official Report. If the member who used that word wishes to admit it and withdraw it now, that would be helpful. If not, I will take action this afternoon. [Interruption.]
Members: Withdraw.
It is very clear from the evidence from the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Resolution Foundation, the Scottish Parliament information centre, the House of Commons library, Professor David Eiser and Professor David Bell that Labour’s proposals are fair and workable. That is why council leader after council leader has backed our proposals and why union leader after union leader has said that they are fair. That is the truth that the First Minister cannot escape.
The First Minister and I have something in common—we both oppose George Osborne’s austerity and we both want the best for our country. Where we part is that Labour has a fair plan that will ask some of us to pay a bit more and the wealthiest few to pay a lot more. In so doing, we can stop these cuts—cuts that would damage our economy and stop young people achieving their potential; cuts that would see councils across the country slash spending on our schools; and cuts to childcare that would hold back working families. Faced with the choice between using the powers of this Parliament to invest and cutting schools, why does the First Minister choose cuts?
Kezia Dugdale and Labour do not oppose George Osborne’s austerity; they campaigned with the Tories to keep us subject to George Osborne’s austerity. What Labour wants to do is not to end austerity but to shift the burden of that austerity on to the shoulders of low-paid workers. Kezia Dugdale mentioned the Resolution Foundation. The Resolution Foundation said that, on Labour’s policy, there will be “hard cases” and poor families will lose out. Kezia Dugdale mentioned David Bell and David Eiser from the University of Stirling. Here is what they said about Labour’s rebate:
“This part of the proposal would require a comprehensive data sharing arrangement between HMRC and local authorities in Scotland, and it would impose a substantial administrative burden on local authorities. There are also questions as to whether such an arrangement would be possible under the Scotland Act 2012.”
Labour is perpetrating a con trick on the lowest-paid workers in our society. The truth of the matter is that my tax bill would rise by 2.7 per cent if Labour’s proposal was implemented but the tax bill of a teacher or a nurse would go up by 5 per cent. That is not fair.
However, I want to give Kezia Dugdale an opportunity to explain. She wants to see this tax rise implemented in seven weeks’ time so, if she wants to be taken seriously, let her answer these questions about her rebate: how much will it cost to administer? [Interruption.] How will eligibility be assessed?
First Minister—
How many of the half million pensioners who will pay a tax rise—
First Minister—
—will even get the rebate?
First Minister, the Opposition puts questions to you. You do not put questions to the Opposition.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-03228)
No immediate plans.
For the first time, the Scottish National Party Government has taken over responsibility for managing payments to farmers. Here is how it has done so far: we have a botched information technology system—costing nearly half as much as this Parliament building—which still does not work; we have farmers fobbed off with promises that they would receive their payments by the end of January—but only a third of them have; and we now find that ministers were told of problems in 2014 but, of course, back then, were all too busy campaigning for independence. We know what its response has been, as it came in five pages of excuses and lines to deploy that were emailed by mistake from the SNP to everybody in Parliament.
I ask the First Minister: should her team, instead of getting their excuses in, be spending more time fixing the problem?
My team, both in Government and in the civil service, are working to make sure that we get payments to farmers as quickly as possible. The Cabinet is discussing the issue weekly. We are fully behind those in the farming community and are doing everything possible to get payments to them as quickly as possible.
It is true that processing payments has taken longer than we had intended due to the complexities of the new common agricultural policy system. We have been open with farmers and with industry about those complexities and what we are doing to address them.
We started paying the first-instalment payments to farmers by the end of December. By the end of January, almost 30 per cent had been paid the first instalment, with further payments initiated since then. As of last week, the total number of payments committed was 35 per cent. Area offices are operating seven days a week, and IT teams are working around the clock. Additional staff have been taken on in local offices.
Richard Lochhead is working hard on the matter. He has also been working with the banks to ensure that they take it into account in their dealings with farmers. We will continue to get on with the job of ensuring that we get the payments to farmers as quickly as possible.
Blame complexity—line to deploy number 4; it is right there on the paper.
While the First Minister might be quoting straight from that document, I will quote directly from the National Farmers Union Scotland president, Allan Bowie. He says:
“Time and again, the Scottish Government’s actions have not matched up to what has been promised ... NFUS ... Have lost trust in the system ... to the extent that the Cabinet Secretary’s assertions cannot be taken as given.”
Today, Audit Scotland is launching its own investigation into this complete failure of management, warning that
“there is still a significant risk to the successful delivery of the programme”.
The First Minister has lost the trust of rural Scotland. She has overseen yet another Government IT fiasco, and farmers no longer have confidence in her rural affairs secretary. What reassurance, if any, can she give rural workers today that this failure is getting the fullest priority from the Scottish Government?
The reassurance that I can give to farmers is that we will continue to do what Richard Lochhead and all of us have been doing, which is to concentrate on ensuring that we get payments to farmers as quickly as possible.
I have given Ruth Davidson and the Parliament an update on the statistics so far. They continue to change on a daily basis as more payments are made. We continue to work as hard as possible to ensure that as many as possible of the first-instalment payments are made by the end of March, with the balance of payments as soon as possible after that.
We are now reporting progress weekly, as I understand it, to the relevant parliamentary committee and to industry, and we are in regular communication with area offices to support faster processing and to unblock any issues that arise. That is what we will continue to do: to work as hard as we can to ensure that farmers get the payments that they are due.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03225)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
We have just heard that councils across Scotland are setting their budgets with £500 million-worth of cuts. We have also just heard about the situation in Perth and Kinross. Right now, SNP-run Aberdeenshire Council is in its budget meeting, and £3 million-worth of cuts to education are on the table. However, it is not too late for the First Minister to call a halt. Will she pick up the phone, or does she want her council to make those cuts?
If Willie Rennie had picked up the phone to his Conservative colleagues while he was propping them up in coalition, we might not have suffered the cuts to our budget, which were imposed on us by Westminster.
As I have said, we have put forward a settlement for local authorities that reduces their total revenue expenditure by 2 per cent, offset by £250 million of investment in social care. We want to work with local authorities to ensure that that settlement protects the things that matter: teachers in our schools; social care investment; a living wage for social care workers; and household budgets.
It is no surprise to me that the party that backed Iain Duncan Smith when he wanted to impose the bedroom tax does not care about increasing taxes on low-paid workers, but I do care about it, so we will continue to take a fair and balanced approach. That will be one of the many differences between the Government and the Liberal Democrats.
It is the same old excuses. I would have sympathy for the First Minister—[Interruption.]
Order.
I would have sympathy for the First Minister if she did not have the power to do something about the situation, but she does. The buck stops at her seat.
This afternoon, the Parliament votes on the Scottish rate of income tax resolution. One penny gives £475 million for education for Scotland’s children. That is the power to stop the cuts. The First Minister has the power. Why will she not use it? Is it pride, is it her finance secretary or does she simply not care any more?
As I have said, it is no surprise to me that the leader of a party that spent five years in coalition with the Conservatives does not care about people on low wages. But I care about people on low wages, struggling to make ends meet, spending every week counting every penny and every pound. Willie Rennie’s policy of putting a penny on the basic rate of income tax—he is not even pretending that he is going to compensate low income workers the way Labour is—would have everybody earning above £11,000 a year paying more in tax. I do not think that that is fair; I think that that is transferring Tory austerity to the shoulders of the low paid. He might want to do that, but I am not prepared to do it.
Housing Benefit (Supported Accommodation and Women’s Aid Refuges)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the impact in Scotland of planned United Kingdom reductions to housing benefits for vulnerable people who stay in supported and women’s aid refuge accommodation. (S4F-03236)
The UK Government proposes to set the housing element of benefit claims to local housing allowance levels as that is lower than the cost of rent and service charges in refuges and supported accommodation. That will have a catastrophic impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society who rely on such support for survival. They include women fleeing domestic abuse, disabled people, older people and some homeless people.
The Scottish Government is concerned about the proposals, which were outlined in the UK Government spending review. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights has written to the UK Minister for Welfare Reform to express our grave concerns and to seek urgent clarification on what protection will be provided for those in supported accommodation.
Does the First Minister agree that the only way to stop tenants and providers suffering the worry and distress that is being caused by the proposals is if the UK Government makes clear now that refuge and supported accommodation will be totally exempt from the local housing allowance cap?
I agree with that. Tenants urgently need to be reassured that their accommodation will be exempt from the local housing allowance cap so that they do not need to worry about their future. Providers of supported accommodation and refuge accommodation also need to have the security of knowing that they can continue to provide essential services and be able to plan for the future.
The UK Government’s proposals mean that there is now real uncertainty about the future provision of refuge and other forms of supported accommodation not only in Scotland but across the UK, despite an earlier announcement that changes to funding arrangements would be cost neutral.
UK ministers can put an end to that worry now, and I call on them to immediately announce an exemption for refuge and supported accommodation from the local housing allowance cap.
North Sea Decommissioning (Forecast until 2040)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on Douglas-Westwood’s forecast for North Sea decommissioning until 2040. (S4F-03226)
The report reinforces how important it is to support the sector at this time. Of course, our first aim is to avoid any premature cessation of production, which is why the United Kingdom Government should ensure that the fiscal regime is not a barrier to activity and investment, which it often has been in the past.
In addition, we must ensure that the decommissioning process is managed effectively. As we set out in the refreshed oil and gas strategy that was published on Monday, Scotland can play a leading role in the development of the decommissioning market.
Although some decommissioning activity is to be expected over the next decade, substantial reserves remain to be recovered in the North Sea. Up to 22 billion barrels of oil and gas are estimated to remain, and new fields continue to come on stream. For example, first production from Total’s Laggan and Tormore fields in the west of Shetland was announced just this week.
The First Minister says that some decommissioning is to be expected, but 150 of our oil platforms are to be scrapped over the next 10 years, making decommissioning an urgent priority if we are to anchor those industrial jobs in Scotland. They are already sailing past our ports down to Hartlepool.
Dundee needs a working river, not just a waterfront. I have met with Shell and Decom North Sea, and they have said that decommissioning can happen in our city. We lost out on the 750 renewables jobs that the Scottish National Party promised, but we have seen three factory closures over the past three weeks, resulting in lots of skilled people looking for work.
Can we get a question?
I ask the First Minister to pledge three things to the 100 engineers at the Flint factory who are facing redundancy: that the oil and gas technology centre will be established in Dundee; that she will find economic development money for our city, as she did for Aberdeen; and that she will come to Dundee, meet with our decommissioning companies, and see how we can scale up to a full-size industry in our city.
I will obviously give consideration to Jenny Marra’s specific proposals, although I understand that a city deal for Dundee is still under discussion. As she will know from the Scottish Government’s position on the Glasgow and Clyde valley city deal and the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire city deal, we are very supportive of city deals.
It is important to have a focus on two things, the first of which is avoiding premature decommissioning. That is why the announcements that we have made around support for North Sea oil and gas are so important; why the city deal investment and the additional investments are so important; and why having the right fiscal regime is so important.
Secondly, we need to make sure that, as decommissioning starts—which, notwithstanding what is happening to oil prices right now, was always going to be the case—Scotland plays a leading role. Decommissioning will develop into a major business activity, and there is a huge economic benefit for us from that. We created Decom North Sea, the decommissioning trade body, to capture and share good practice. We support the Oil and Gas Authority’s plan to establish a single decommissioning board so that we can drive forward innovation and efficiency. Furthermore, we are committed to investing in the necessary infrastructure to support decommissioning activity, which is of course demonstrated through the £2.4 million funding from the Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to develop the quay in Shetland. However, there will be other projects that we will want to support as well.
We are absolutely focused on the issue, which is demonstrated in the refreshed oil and gas strategy. I would ask Jenny Marra to engage with that constructively.
Scotland is going to be dramatically more exposed to the risks from the inevitable decline in the fossil fuel industry if we simply kid ourselves that it is not happening already. Is it not clear that we face a very simple choice: embrace the opportunities from decommissioning and accelerate activity in that regard as our principal focus, or see those jobs go to bidders from other countries, which will gain the international reputation of being world leaders in the industry?
I noticed Jenny Marra applauding a call for accelerated decommissioning of the North Sea, which seems a strange position to take.
I say to Patrick Harvie that I agree with what he said in the first part of his question. As I hope he heard me say to Jenny Marra, I think that we should embrace the opportunities of decommissioning. Where we differ is that I do not think that we should be seeking to accelerate decommissioning; I think that we should be seeking to avoid premature decommissioning.
We should also be doing what this Government has consistently done—[Interruption.]
Ms Marra!
—which is invest in renewable infrastructure and renewable generation as well. We will continue to support the North Sea while also supporting, where and wherever we can, the transition to renewable capacity. I think that that is the right, balanced approach to take.
Purchasing Managers Index
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the latest Bank of Scotland’s purchasing managers index. (S4F-03231)
I welcome the recent Bank of Scotland’s purchasing managers index, which signals the continued expansion of the private sector in Scotland at the start of this year. It also highlights that the services and manufacturing sectors continue to be affected by the challenges that we have just been talking about with regard to the oil and gas industry and, indeed, by the global economic environment. That is why, in supporting the Scottish economy, we recently pledged £379 million of investment in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and last week a further £12 million fund to provide financial support for people who are retraining or undertaking new education.
I thank the First Minister for her response, but despite the positive gloss that she puts on it, the PMI report from the Bank of Scotland is just one of a series of reports recently that have had worrying news for the Scottish economy. Yesterday, the Scottish Government’s national account survey showed that Scottish gross domestic product per capita is now 1 per cent lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom, although it was 6 per cent higher two years ago.
The Scottish Government announced in its draft budget a doubling of the so-called large business supplement for non-domestic rates, which will hit 26 per cent of businesses in Edinburgh, 25 per cent in Aberdeen, 24 per cent in Inverness and 20 per cent in Perth. How will that £60 million tax raid on Scottish businesses help grow our economy?
The increase in the large business supplement is lower than it was in, I think, 2011. Reflected throughout our discussions has been, on one side, people wanting us to put up tax for basic rate income taxpayers and, on the other side, people wanting us to cut taxes for business. We will continue to take a sensible, balanced approach to our budget and to growing our economy, ensuring fairness for taxpayers.
Murdo Fraser puts forward in characteristic style the doom-and-gloom view of the Scottish economy. Of course, because of the global economic conditions, there is no room for complacency, but let us just look at the reality in our economy. The economy has grown for three years continuously; we have a higher employment rate than in the United Kingdom as a whole; employment is 67,000 above its pre-recession peak; we have a higher youth employment rate than in the UK; our female employment rate is the second highest in the UK; we are investing where our investment is required; and we are continuing to support our economy as it moves forward. I would hope that Murdo Fraser and the whole chamber would get behind this Government as it seeks to ensure that we continue to see growth in the Scottish economy.
Before I move on to the next item of business, I remind guests leaving the gallery that Parliament is still in session. I would appreciate it if they would do so quietly and respectfully.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Local Newspapers