Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02653)
Later today I will be confirming that the just-published recommendation of the national health service pay review body, for a 1 per cent consolidated pay rise for all agenda for change staff, will be accepted in full by the Government. Parliament will recall that, last year, Scotland was the only part of the United Kingdom to accept the pay review body recommendation.
We very much welcome that.
Yesterday the First Minister confirmed that she still supports full fiscal autonomy for Scotland within the United Kingdom. That means that all tax and spending from Scotland remains in Scotland. Can the First Minister confirm that full fiscal autonomy means scrapping the Barnett formula—yes or no?
So much for the new-style, patriotic Scottish Labour Party. It did not really last long, did it? Labour has grabbed the first opportunity to get right back on to the same side as the Tories, to gleefully tell Scotland how useless it thinks we are.
The Barnett formula will of course remain in place until such time as this Parliament is in charge of our fiscal and economic decisions. It is members of the unionist parties, on all sides of the chamber, who pose the risk to the Barnett formula in the meantime.
The only cuts that are on the horizon for Scotland, this year or the following year, are the cuts that are planned by Westminster, regardless of whether it is the Tories or Labour in government. It is only a few weeks since Labour trooped through the Tory lobbies to vote for £30 billion of cuts. It is Labour that, left to its own devices, will impose cuts on Scotland. The only way to stop that is to vote for the Scottish National Party, because only the SNP offers an alternative to Tory austerity.
Labour voted against austerity in the House of Commons last week. [Interruption.]
Order.
Where were SNP members? They were posted missing, just as they were the night of the national minimum wage vote.
As the First Minister well knows, full fiscal autonomy does mean scrapping the Barnett formula. Only in the world of the SNP would we stop paying into a UK-wide system but expect the same system to continue to pay out to us.
Last year, the First Minister said that scrapping Barnett would cost Scotland £4 billion. Yesterday, Scotland’s official accounts confirmed that she was absolutely right. Does Nicola Sturgeon still agree with herself that scrapping Barnett would have cost Scotland £4 billion last year? [Applause.]
Everybody will be noticing that the people applauding most loudly for Kezia Dugdale were her colleagues on the Tory benches. [Interruption.]
Order.
Kezia Dugdale referred to the motion that Labour tabled and voted for in the House of Commons last week. Luckily, I brought a copy of that motion with me today. I will read it to Kezia Dugdale. It calls on the Government to take an approach that involves “reductions in public spending”. In other words, in the House of Commons last week Labour voted for further cuts to be imposed on Scotland. It is because the SNP does not propose cuts that we voted against Labour’s austerity motion in the House of Commons. [The First Minister has corrected this contribution. See end of report]
We face a choice—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
This is the choice at the heart of the figures that were published yesterday. We can decide that we want to stay at the mercy of never-ending Westminster cuts, which have already cost the Scottish budget £12 billion and which are estimated to cost it £14.5 billion over the next five years—that is £1,000 for every person in Scotland—or we can take more control over our own finances, so that we can build a better future. I know what side of that choice I am on. I also know what side of that choice Kezia Dugdale and Labour are on: the same side as the Tories.
The First Minister has said repeatedly that scrapping the Barnett formula would have cost Scotland £4 billion last year. The SNP leaflet that I have here, which is being put through doors at the moment, says that scrapping Barnett would lead to billions of pounds-worth of cuts—SNP cuts.
Given the plummeting oil price, the independent experts at the IFS say that the cost to Scotland will rise to about £6.6 billion, which would mean massive spending cuts over and above what we would get if the Tories were to win in May. That would mean huge cuts to the budget for our NHS and our schools. It is austerity on a scale never seen before in Scotland. It is austerity max.
Can the First Minister tell us how many jobs in Scotland would be lost under the SNP’s plans to scrap the Barnett formula?
It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that Kezia Dugdale has just said that Westminster Governments pose a threat to NHS funding in Scotland. I seem to remember that during the referendum Labour denied point-blank that that was the case. It is because they know that they cannot trust a single word that Scottish Labour says any more that people in Scotland are deserting the party in their droves.
Kezia Dugdale has a nerve to come here and scaremonger about mythical cuts, when just 60 miles away the most senior Labour councillor in the country is calling on the Scottish Government to take away old people’s bus passes, introduce tuition fees and start charging again for prescriptions. Labour needs to sort itself out before coming to the Parliament to lecture anybody else.
I asked the First Minister very specifically about jobs. According to the SNP Government’s own economic modelling, reducing Government spending in Scotland by £6.5 billion would mean a cut of around 5 per cent in our gross domestic product. Forget the dry, theoretical numbers—that means 138,000 Scottish jobs, which is one in every 16 jobs, and thousands of families facing the prospect of being out of work and struggling to make ends meet. The cause of that would be the SNP’s reckless plan for full fiscal autonomy.
After years of telling us that only the SNP stands up for Scotland, we know now that the reality is different. Far from standing up for Scotland, is it not the case that the SNP’s Barnett bombshell would cost well over 100,000 Scottish jobs?
If anybody is wondering why Labour is in the dire straits that it is, they only have to listen to Kezia Dugdale today. She has the temerity to mention jobs. Under this SNP Government there is lower unemployment and higher employment than any other part of the UK. People in Scotland know that I—[Interruption.]
Order.
They know that I, the SNP and the Scottish Government do not propose cuts. We want to grow our economy so that we can protect Scotland from Labour and Tory cuts. The only people who are proposing cuts are the Tories, the Liberals and the Labour Party. We know that they want to impose more cuts on Scotland, and the only way to prevent that is to send SNP MPs to Westminster to force them into an alternative.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02652)
I have no current plans to meet the Prime Minister, unless he finds the backbone to join the leaders’ debate on television on 2 April.
I am pleased by the announcement that we heard in the last hour that all of the four main party leaders in the Scottish Parliament have agreed to an STV debate, just a month before the election.
I want to ask the First Minister about a recent speech in which she said that she wanted Britain to borrow an extra £180 billion, landing the United Kingdom even deeper in the red. Yesterday, my colleague Gavin Brown asked the Deputy First Minister when, under the Scottish National Party’s plans, Britain would finally eliminate the deficit. The Deputy First Minister replied, “Much later”. Can I ask the First Minister to be more specific? How much later? In which year, under her plans, would the UK no longer be in deficit?
It is no secret that I take a very different approach on austerity from that of Ruth Davidson and her colleagues. Under the plans that we have published, which would see modest increases in public spending that would help us to invest in skills, infrastructure and innovation, invest more in our public services and invest to protect the vulnerable, whom Ruth Davidson’s party’s policies are hitting so hard, debt and deficit as a share of our national income would reduce every year over the next Parliament.—[Interruption.]
Order.
I do not pretend other than that I argue for a slower debt and deficit reduction than the Tories do. I want an alternative to austerity: I do not want the cuts that the Tories are proposing to go on hammering the most vulnerable and harming our public services. That is the difference between us.
That was a pretty long answer, but I asked for only a short one: just one year. That is all I asked for, but it is clear that the Scottish National Party has not a clue. It has no answer on its plans for Britain, so I will ask the First Minister about her plan for Scotland.
Yesterday, the First Minister was quoted as saying:
“Short of independence, I believe we should have full fiscal autonomy”.
In response to yesterday’s figures in “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2013-14” and to that statement, the impartial Institute for Fiscal Studies said that full fiscal autonomy would result in
“substantial spending cuts or tax rises in Scotland”,
with income tax rises equalling 15p for every earner in Scotland.
I repeatedly asked the First Minister’s predecessor to give a detailed rebuttal to IFS projections, but he never did. I am asking this First Minister to tell us now, in the chamber, why the IFS is wrong.
Let us look in detail at yesterday’s IFS statement that Ruth Davidson talks about. The view that she quoted was predicated on Scotland being fiscally autonomous in 2015-16. For Ruth Davidson’s information, 2015-16 starts in two and half weeks’ time, and we are not going to have a full fiscal autonomy by then.
Perhaps more fundamentally—[Interruption.]
Order. Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
Perhaps more fundamentally, if Ruth Davidson had the honesty to complete the IFS’s sentence about tax rises or spending cuts, she would find that the last part said:
“unless ... credible policies to boost the growth of Scotland’s onshore economies and revenues can be developed.”
That is the whole point: we have a choice. We can accept never-ending Westminster cuts from the Tories, the Liberals and Labour, or we can take more control of our own finances and build a better future for this country. I know which side I stand on.
Given that this is Commonwealth week, can the First Minister affirm the Government’s commitment to the Commonwealth games legacy in my constituency and in the rest of the east end of Glasgow? Will she welcome the Auditor General’s report on the successful management of the games?
As today’s Audit Scotland report shows, Glasgow 2014 was a spectacular success that was delivered under budget. We are firmly committed to securing a lasting social, cultural and economic legacy from the games for the east end of Glasgow, and indeed for the whole country.
At the heart of that success is the transformation that we have seen in the east end of Glasgow, with world-class sporting facilities and venues, new community facilities, improved infrastructure and an award-winning housing development at the athletes village, which I recently saw for myself.
Today, we have announced £600,000 of funding for the Clyde Gateway to ensure that the legacy continues and that more communities across the east end are helped by providing training and employment opportunities and by encouraging people to get more active. I would hope that every member in the chamber would welcome that, and I take the opportunity to congratulate again everybody associated with the success of Glasgow 2014.
Dundee’s last independent mid-sized builder, Muirfield, has applied to the court for the appointment of an administrator. What can the Scottish Government do to support the 250 people whose jobs are under threat? What does the First Minister think about an economic situation in which local firms of that size and importance in our communities are unable to survive?
Jenny Marra raises an important issue, and we must do everything that we can to protect local companies. In the particular case that she cites, the Government will be in contact, partnership action for continuing employment arrangements will be in place, and we will be in dialogue with Dundee City Council. There will be a huge construction boost to the city of Dundee through the Victoria and Albert museum of design, and we should welcome that. However, we should also ensure that we do everything that we can to support smaller businesses as we recover from the recession.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02651)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
On Monday, the First Minister was wrong on her plan to borrow £180 billion. She said that debt would go down, but yesterday John Swinney admitted that it will go up. Her whole Government was wrong to base its plans on an oil boom, and yesterday’s “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures were the final devastating blow to her economics. When she gets so much wrong, what economic plan does she have left?
I would have thought that money might be the last subject that the Liberal Democrats wanted to talk about today. We have had an interesting insight into how they deal with the indebtedness of their own party.
On the specific question that Willie Rennie raises, I absolutely stand by what I said about the opportunity for an additional £180 billion for modest increases in spending. At 0.5 per cent a year in real terms, I think that that is preferable to the painful cuts that the Tories and the Liberals are imposing. However, even if I am very charitable and accept in full the Treasury’s methodology in the paper that it published this week, in order to get debt reducing in every year and to be lower at the end of the Parliament, we could still spend £165 billion. I am happy to compromise with Willie Rennie: if he is happy to have extra spending as long as we can get debt reducing, why do we not settle on £165 billion?
The First Minister needs to come clean about—[Interruption.]
Order. Order. Let us hear Mr Rennie.
She said that debt would go down as a proportion of gross domestic product, and it is going up. John Swinney admitted that yesterday, and she should have the courage to admit it as well. The United Kingdom economic record is sound. Let us just remember that we have record high employment, wages outstripping—[Interruption.]
Order.
Members should listen to this, because they said that it would never work. We have record high employment, wages outstripping inflation, the highest growth in the G7 and the prospect of balancing the books so that we do not have to borrow to pay for day-to-day services. [Interruption.]
Order.
That is the economics that the First Minister said would not work. Her plan adds £4.7 billion-worth of debt interest to the books. That is 180 secondary schools not being built every year, because we have to pay her debts. How is that fair to future generations?
Let me go back to the start of Willie Rennie’s question. There is certainly somebody who needs to come clean today in politics, but it is nobody on the SNP benches.
Willie Rennie also says that the policy of the Tory-Liberal Government is working. The policies of the Tory-Liberal Westminster Government are hitting the 10 per cent poorest in our country hardest. If he is proud of that, that is his prerogative, but if that is what the Liberal Democrats have come to stand for, it is no wonder people cannot wait to give them a complete doing at the ballot box on 7 May.
People watching today’s session of First Minister’s questions will have come to a very clear conclusion: if they want cuts, they can vote for any one of the Tories, the Liberals or Labour; but if they want a clear and principled alternative to austerity, the only way to get it is to vote SNP.
Postal Services (Collection Times)
To ask the First Minister what the impact on rural businesses and communities will be of Royal Mail's decision to reduce collection times at 3,300 Scottish postboxes. (S4F-02654)
I am concerned about any decisions that would have an adverse impact on Scotland’s rural businesses and communities. The United Kingdom Government mishandled the unwanted sale of Royal Mail. It must now ensure that a privatised Royal Mail provides a service that suits Scotland’s needs—in particular, the vital service to our remote and rural communities.
Does the First Minister agree that the inevitable job losses among postal workers and the effect that the reduced services will bring is a negation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the universal service obligation? Does that not show the detrimental impact that the privatisation of Royal Mail is having?
This Government opposed the privatisation of Royal Mail. The sell-off is inevitably leading to concerns over Royal Mail’s ability to deliver the universal service obligation. Any job losses are to be deeply regretted and, of course, will make it more challenging for Royal Mail to meet its obligations.
The report from the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, “Competition in the postal services sector and the Universal Service Obligation”, recognises that market conditions are changing rapidly. Ofcom, the postal regulator, must ensure that it closely monitors the situation in Scotland and responds quickly if needed. The vital lifeline for many of Scotland’s communities absolutely must be protected.
Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right. The situation has been caused by the privatisation, but the specific problem has also been driven by Ofcom. Will the First Minister ask Ofcom to insist that later collections be protected? Will she support the Communication Workers Union in asking Royal Mail to provide better information to customers about collection times?
I am certainly happy to communicate that view to Ofcom and to support the general concerns that Hugh Henry has expressed. I hope that we can get a degree of consensus in this Parliament that some of the changes that we are seeing pose a risk to some of our communities and that it is absolutely essential that we do everything that we can to protect the lifeline service that so many of our communities rely on.
University Students (Support)
To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is giving to the poorest university students. (S4F-02659)
One of this Government’s proudest achievements is the restoration of free higher education. In addition to free tuition, our minimum income guarantee provides students from the poorest households with £7,500 of living-costs support every year. That support has helped to ensure that record numbers of 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas are being accepted to university.
However, we recognise and I believe strongly that we must do much more. That is why I announced in the programme for Government that we will form a commission on widening access to advise on the clear milestones that we must meet to ensure that every child has the same chance of going to university, and what practical measures we need to take to ensure that we achieve that ambition.
The fact of the matter is that this Government in recent years has systematically cut maintenance grants for the poorest university students. In fact, such students in Scotland now receive a maximum of £1,750. Students in their position in England and Northern Ireland receive twice that, and in Wales they receive three times that level of grant support. Indeed, apart from Iceland, where there are no maintenance grants—
Can we get a question, Mr Gray?
—every single country in western Europe provides more support for poorer students than Scotland does. The First Minister has talked a lot about hypothetical cuts today—
Question.
I am talking about a real cut. Will the First Minister reverse it, as Labour has promised to do?
Of course, the students in England to whom Iain Gray refers pay tuition fees. Students in Scotland do not pay tuition fees. For students who are living at home, our minimum income guarantee of £7,500 a year for students from the poorest backgrounds is the highest in the UK.
I agree that we need to do more. I hope that Iain Gray and I can perhaps accept that we agree on this. We have to do more to support students from the most disadvantaged parts of our country to access university if that is what they want to do. That is why I have already announced the intention to set up the widening access commission.
However, I think that people should be cautious about believing a word that Labour says when it comes to student support. After all, it was Labour that said in the 1997 election that it would not introduce tuition fees, but did introduce tuition fees after the election. It was Labour that said in the 2001 election that it would not introduce top-up tuition fees, but then after the election did introduce top-up tuition fees.
I stand by this Government’s record on student support. We will continue to take action to improve it. I do not think that people will believe a word that Labour says when it comes to students.
NUS Scotland described the Scottish Government’s student support package as
“the best support package in the whole of the UK”.
Does the First Minister agree that it is a bit rich for parties that were pro-tuition fees to try to rebrand themselves as parties for students?
As I said, people cannot believe a word that Labour says. Labour has consistently broken its promises on tuition fees.
What about “Dump the debt”?
Order.
I know that Labour does not like hearing this, but it fought the 1997 election on a “No fees” promise: it broke that promise. It fought the 2001 election on a “No top up fees” promise: it broke that promise. I heard somebody shout, “What about in Scotland?” When Labour was in office in the Scottish Government it moved tuition fees from the front door to the back door, but it still imposed tuition fees. You cannot trust Labour on student support. You can trust the Scottish National Party, because we abolished tuition fees.
The First Minister will be aware of the high drop-out rate of students from Scottish universities, particularly from the University of the West of Scotland. What help can the Scottish Government give to both students and universities to address that difficult, sensitive and complex problem.
That is a difficult and complex problem and it is an important challenge. I want the widening access commission to look not just at how we support and encourage more students from the poorest backgrounds to access university, but at how we support them to carry on through their university courses, complete those courses and graduate. As the widening access commission is set up and developed, I will be very keen to share our thinking on that with members from across the chamber.
I am absolutely determined that we will do everything that we can to ensure that every young person in Scotland has an equal chance of going to university and completing that university education. I hope that all of us across the chamber, regardless of our party, will come together to support that.
In the recent budget negotiations, Scottish Liberal Democrats urged the Deputy First Minister to increase the earnings threshold for repaying student loans from just under £17,000 to £21,000, which is the threshold in the rest of the United Kingdom. That could save young graduates £268 a year and the Government could do it immediately, with no impact on its budget. The First Minister says that she wants to do more, so will she explain why her deputy rejected that move?
We will continue to consider those issues. Although the different threshold that Liam McArthur referred to is in place, when students here pay back their loans they pay them back at a lower rate of interest to compensate for that. Nevertheless, Liam McArthur has raised a legitimate issue that he has raised before, and it is one that the Government will continue to consider.
Cancer Patients (Assistance with Day-to-day Tasks)
To ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Government provides to cancer patients for day-to-day tasks. (S4F-02655)
The Government recognises that there are physical, financial and often emotional consequences associated with a cancer diagnosis, which is why our cancer action plan, “Better Cancer Care”, focuses on supporting people living with and beyond cancer. We work with a number of support organisations, including Macmillan Cancer Support, to ensure that cancer patients are getting advice on the benefits and support to which they are entitled.
The First Minister may be aware of Macmillan Cancer Support’s recent research paper, “Hidden at Home”, which revealed that half of cancer patients throughout the United Kingdom who have support or personal care needs receive care only from friends and family. What more can the Scottish Government do to provide support for those patients and their carers?
Anybody who has read the Macmillan “Hidden at Home” report will recognise that supporting cancer patients outwith and beyond their clinical treatment is absolutely essential to ensuring that those patients get the best possible care and outcomes. That is why we are working with Macmillan Cancer Support to take forward the transforming care after treatment programme. The programme is an excellent example of the third sector and the Scottish Government working together to improve how care is delivered to people following a cancer diagnosis.
The First Minister will be aware that the report highlights that council cuts are impacting on people with cancer and other long-term conditions. Will she make it a priority to look at the services that are delivered to those people and ensure that they are in place to support them?
We have to ensure that all agencies—the national health service, local authorities and third sector organisations, which have a big part to play—are equipped as well as they need to be to support people who are diagnosed with cancer. That is one of the many reasons why we are working to integrate health and social care services so that there is a genuinely joined-up approach to care.
We in Scotland should be proud of the cancer treatment and care that we provide for patients. When I was Cabinet Secretary for Heath and Wellbeing, I regularly saw how difficult it is for patients who are diagnosed with cancer not only to get through their treatment and the clinical part of their care but to cope with all the other consequences, whether financial, work-related or emotional. We have a duty to ensure that we provide adequate support across all those issues.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I note that during exchanges between the First Minister and Kezia Dugdale on last week’s debate in the House of Commons, the First Minister stated that the Scottish National Party members voted against a motion. In actual fact, they abstained. [Laughter.]
Mr Kelly—
In order that the record is accurate, I ask the First Minister to acknowledge her inaccuracy and have the record corrected during this meeting.
Mr Kelly—you have made your point.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Libraries