Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day.
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The Government’s revenue and spending figures show that Scotland is in deficit to the tune of £12 billion, which is the equivalent of all our health spending. Oil revenues have gone down by more than £4 billion in just one year, which is the equivalent of all our spending on schools. If Scotland were independent, how would the First Minister cope with that revenue drop—by cutting services or by raising taxes?
I do not know whether Johann Lamont has come across the fact, but the United Kingdom is in deficit to the tune of more than £100 billion in the years that she has noted. The key point, which we have put forward before, is who is in the relatively stronger position. Johann Lamont knows—we have discussed this many times—that, if we look at the past five years, as John Swinney has just mentioned, or at the past 30 years, the answer is that Scotland has been in the stronger fiscal position relative to the United Kingdom.
That is, of course, in the context of the United Kingdom. Our case for independence is that by marshalling the great natural and human resources of Scotland we can build a fair and just society in this country.
As so many of the better together notaries have said on so many occasions that they do not doubt that Scotland is an economically viable successful country, and given that Standard & Poor’s, which is not noted for its optimism on such matters, said it only two weeks ago, can Johann Lamont not bring herself to concede that, economically, this country can build that prosperous and just future for the Scottish people?
All that was very interesting, but that was not the question that I asked—there is nothing new there.
The First Minister has in the past criticised me, but it appears that he is saying today that a £4 billion revenue drop is just a wee thing: something that we do not have to worry about.
A great wee line.
Indeed—exactly. I have learned my lesson, and perhaps he should do the same.
The First Minister has talked of a stabilisation fund, but he could put money in that only by cutting services or by raising taxes. Last year, he said that Scotland had a relative surplus in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. Will he now confirm that the rest of the United Kingdom has a relative surplus in comparison with Scotland’s relative deficit? Can he explain how he would maintain our schools when he has lost the equivalent of an entire schools budget? Would he cut services or raise taxes? [Interruption.]
Order.
I am delighted that we will no longer hear about the wee things. For those who did not understand the allusion, Johann Lamont is referring to when she seemed to think that employment policy, competition policy, control of oil and gas revenues and control of nuclear weapons were just the “wee things”, which it did not matter if Scotland controlled.
Those are of course the big things, but now that that lesson has been learned—
Answer the question.
Mr Kelly.
Now that that lesson has been learned, the something-for-nothing society will, I hope, also disappear from the Johann Lamont lexicon.
Let us look at the relative position of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. If we look at the years going backwards, there was a difference of £283 per head last year, which was the figure that was published yesterday. However, there was a positive £489 difference the year before, £214 the year before that, £75 the year before that and £1,100 in 2008-09. That is a total of £1,600 per head. Over the past five years, that is how Scotland would have been relatively better off than the UK as a whole.
Given that—because it amounts to £8,000 million—would it not be possible that Johann Lamont would concede that, over that period of time, we could have borrowed less or invested more, or had the stabilisation fund to make sure that, over that period, we could use that wealth to benefit the people of Scotland? Or does she still think that it is a wee thing that we would have been £8 billion better off, or £1,600 per head?
It is the First Minister who seems to be entirely relaxed about the fact that he would have £4 billion less to spend on jobs, education and support for our young people than we would have otherwise. This is the man who lectures us about economics, and he gives us an answer like that—numbers that make no sense whatsoever.
I am not even asking the First Minister something difficult, such as what currency he would raise taxes in. Whether it is groats, bawbees or Armenian drams—[Interruption.]
Order.
—in the past 12 months, Scotland has lost more than £4 billion of oil revenue. At the moment, that loss is borne across the United Kingdom because we are in the United Kingdom. If Scotland were outside the United Kingdom, I ask again: how would the First Minister pay for that loss in revenue—by cutting services or by raising taxes?
I point out that Scotland loses out on £5.5 billion of oil revenues, because they are the oil revenues for the past year from Scottish waters that are siphoned down to the London Treasury. Over the past 30 years, we have lost out on several hundred billion pounds. It is an indication of the strength of the Scottish economy that, over the past five years, we would have been £8 billion better off if we had been running our own finances rather than having them run for us by London.
I know that Johann Lamont believes that oil and gas is a dreadful burden on the Scottish economy. There are many oil and gas producers around the world, and every single one of them regards the hydrocarbon industry and the revenues that flow from it as a valuable resource that they are benefiting from. Why is it that, according to better together—Labour and Tory, Tory and Labour—it is only Scotland for whom oil and gas is this incredible curse?
If, over the past five years, we had been £8 billion better off, can we not all think of some wee things that we would have liked to invest in in the economy, such as jobs for the people and a fairer society? That is why Johann Lamont’s campaign to tell people in Scotland that they are too poor to be independent will get the same giant raspberry as it did in the Daily Record poll this morning. [Interruption.]
Order.
I think that that must be a record number of straw men that the First Minister put up in order to defend himself. Of course, I have never said that oil is a burden to Scotland, because without oil, Scotland’s deficit would be £16 billion. What we got from the First Minister there is what they call on television quiz shows a pointless answer, although in fact it is charitable to call it an answer at all.
We know what the First Minister would not do. He would not be able to borrow his way out of trouble, because who would lend to a country that had just walked away from its debts? [Interruption.]
Order.
That is not scaremongering; that is quoting the First Minister himself.
We also know that the First Minister would not raise taxes on the rich, because he ruled that out last week. He would not raise taxes on banks and big business, because he is committed to cutting tax for them lower than George Osborne is. The First Minister has lost the equivalent of the entire schools budget. I ask again: how would he pay for our schools—by cutting services elsewhere or by raising taxes on every family in Scotland? [Interruption.]
Order.
Johann Lamont asked who would lend money to an independent Scotland. Two weeks ago, the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s noted that
“even without North Sea oil and calculating per capita GDP only by looking at onshore income Scotland would qualify for their highest economic assessment.”
If an international ratings agency can say that, can the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland not bring herself to say it?
Of course, it was not so long ago that the better together parties told us that we could not be independent because we would lose our AAA rating. In fact, I have here the leaflet about the AAA rating that went round the doors. Then, of course, the UK lost its AAA rating from two of the agencies.
The reason why there is confidence from so many people on Scotland’s economic prospects comes from looking at the figures that Johann Lamont has been given. Over the past five years, there has been a relative surplus of £8 billion. Scotland has been £8 billion stronger—almost £1,600 a head for every man, woman and child—than the UK as a whole.
Johann Lamont did not seem to appreciate the reference to the Daily Record poll this morning. That poll showed the “highest” support for independence recorded this year and that the Scottish National Party is “the most popular party” by some considerable distance. Most interesting of all, it showed that a quarter of the remaining Labour supporters in Scotland intend to vote for independence. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the miserable, doom-laden running-down of our country that Johann Lamont has come to every day this week. [Interruption.]
Order.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01945)
No plans in the near future.
This time last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, said that there was “little doubt” that Scotland was
“moving into a second oil boom”.
Yesterday, we found out that annual oil revenues dropped by 44 per cent, leaving a £4.5 billion black hole. [Interruption.]
Order.
That is the price of funding every school in Scotland. However, that black hole did not affect Scotland’s public spending because we can, as part of the United Kingdom, absorb those shocks.
We want the North Sea to produce more, and the UK Government is fast-tracking all recommendations from the industry expert Sir Ian Wood to squeeze out every last drop. We have the support from the UK Government to keep the North Sea industry going, and we have the support of a nation with broad shoulders to absorb the shocks. Does the First Minister accept that the last thing we need right now is to end both those advantages?
I absolutely loved that.
“We have the support from the UK Government”
to sustain “the North Sea industry”. In fact, the North Sea industry has supported the UK Government for the past 30 years.
As for the unbridled optimism of John Swinney on the prospects for the North Sea, let me read what David Cameron has said about North Sea oil. He has said that
“There are many, many years left of this great resource”
and that
“It is a huge national advantage having such a brilliant oil and gas industry.”
I know that I should not associate John Swinney with the Prime Minister in any shape or form whatever.
How come the industry is such a huge advantage for the United Kingdom, but a huge burden for an independent Scotland? Ruth Davidson criticised John Swinney’s comment on the North Sea boom. Is she not aware that it is precisely because of the £14 billion of investment, which has lowered revenues in the short term, that both production and revenues will be increased in the long term? The oil companies are investing precisely to get more oil and gas out of the North Sea. There will certainly be profits for oil companies, but there will also be revenues for the Scottish people—assuming that we have the common sense to ensure that a Scottish exchequer receives the revenues, as opposed to their burdening future Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer in London. I would not want to impose such a burden on them.
Let us talk about the revenues. The First Minister says that he wants control of North Sea oil revenue in order to fund transformational policies, but let us look at his credibility. His flagship pledge was to extend childcare. We all want that but, this week, we found out that his white paper plans had been plucked out of thin air without any sums being done. The First Minister might think that that is credible, but I do not. Scots know a chancer when they see one. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister would have us believe in an oil boom that does not exist and in an oil fund with no money to pay for policies that he has not even costed. The First Minister pretends that he is holding a full house, but is it not the case that, after yesterday, his plans are a busted flush?
After yesterday, we know that, over the past five years, Scotland would have been better off by £8 billion, which is £1,600 a head for every man, woman and child in the country.
Let yous talk about childcare, because it is an important issue. We have argued—and substantiated it through production of the calculations—that we can afford a sustainable transformation of childcare by using the mobilisation of women back into the workforce and the 6 per cent increase in employment and participation to generate £700 million of revenues. The difficulty that we have at present is that only a small fraction of those additional revenues would accrue to the Scottish finance minister, while the vast majority would go to George Osborne in London.
If Ruth Davidson could pledge that, if we can effect the transformation in childcare and the increased participation of women in the workforce in Scotland, George Osborne’s first priority will be to say, “Oh, I’m receiving an extra £700 million; I must immediately give it to the Scottish Parliament to make the policy sustainable,” that would be something. However, we know otherwise from all the evidence, including from the last 30 years in which successive chancellors who have had £300 billion of oil revenues have said, “Here are the massive natural resources of Scotland. Let’s spend them on nuclear submarines.”
In the light of an inaccurate report in the House of Commons on the discharge of alpha-omitting particulate from HMS Vulcan’s nuclear test reactor two years ago, can the First Minister assure my constituents and the wider public that we can trust the Ministry of Defence and the United Kingdom Government with our environmental safety?
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has informed stakeholders of an incident in the civil aspects of Dounreay and will report today on that. The agency does not expect the incident to have wide environmental implications; indeed, it seems to have been safely contained. However, that provides an illustration of openness and transparency, which is hugely important in dealing with such matters. What a contrast between the ability to report on a civil incident and the inability, that is caused by the secrecy of the Ministry of Defence, to report on something that is covered by Crown immunity. Richard Lochhead put it extremely well in the statement that he made the other day.
Since then, we have had two developments. Mr Hammond has now corrected in Hansard the information that he gave to members of the United Kingdom Parliament last week. Now that the Secretary of State for Defence has corrected the record, perhaps Conservative MSPs—I heard Murdo Fraser talking about the issue this very morning—will now acknowledge that there was a mistake in the information that was given so belatedly to the House of Commons last week. In the defence secretary’s correction, he says that there was
“no measurable change in the alpha-emitting particulate discharge.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 11 March 2014; Vol 577, c 4MC.]
That has caused great consternation in SEPA, because Vulcan has no agreed authorised level of alpha particle emissions and, to SEPA’s best knowledge, Vulcan does not emit any of those particles. So, even in the correction, there still seems to be a dedication to obfuscation and to concealing information.
That is why Richard Lochhead outlined the process of removing that last vestige of Crown immunity, which seems to be the most satisfactory way forward so that as a community, Parliament and the Government in Scotland can be secure in the knowledge that we get proper information timeously, which will mean that we can understand and contain any risk to our natural environment.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01947)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The skill and ingenuity of people in Scotland mean that 130,000 more people are in work. That is inside the United Kingdom—not outside it. The “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (2014)” figures yesterday showed the stability of the broad-based UK economy compared to the volatility of the Scottish finances. One year’s problem with oil means that £4 billion would need to be found from somewhere. Instead of searching for a crumb of comfort, why will the First Minister not answer the questions that he has been dodging for the past 15 minutes? Which taxes would go up and which services would be cut?
I think that Willie Rennie should have revised his questions after hearing my answers to the earlier questions. [Interruption.]
Order.
I pointed out that over the past five years, we would have been relatively better off by £8 billion, which is £1,600 a head for every man, woman and child.
Incidentally, I welcome—as we have said on so many occasions—the positive increases in the Scottish economy, the record business confidence that was reported last week and the record demand for labour that was reported this week.
I wonder whether Willie Rennie noticed in the figures that were published yesterday that even with the £4 billion fall in oil revenues, the current budget balance for Scotland and the UK were virtually identical. What made the difference was an almost 1 per cent greater increase in capital investment in Scotland than in the UK. I think that that increase was something to do with the finance secretary, Mr John Swinney, and how he has managed to sustain capital investment despite UK cutbacks. Maybe that partly explains why the Scottish recession has been less deep than the UK recession and why we are now enjoying—according to all the indicators—a substantial recovery.
I did not change my questions because the First Minister did not answer the earlier questions.
The First Minister will say absolutely anything. His expert communitymission says that the fiscal deficit needs to go down in order to create an oil fund, but yesterday his party celebrated when the deficit went up. In January, he said that we should ignore the economic figures for the past five years; today, he says that they are the only ones that count.
Last year, the SNP paraded the numbers for a single isolated year; today, the First Minister says that only an idiot would do such a thing. He used to say, “Look at the facts.” Now all that he has are excuses.
The First Minister likes to quote the Bible. He usually casts himself as Moses, but should it not be the book of Daniel that he quotes on this occasion? He has been measured and he has been found wanting.
I think that Willie Rennie must be confusing me with somebody else. I quote from many sources; no doubt I have quoted from the Bible, but I do not think that I have ever been a great biblical quoter. Perhaps he is confusing me with one of his colleagues. [Interruption.]
Order.
I have absolutely no idea what Willie Rennie is talking about, to be absolutely frank—[Interruption.]
Order.
However, on Willie Rennie’s argument that we have just for the first time decided to talk about the five years of figures, I talked about the past five years of figures at First Minister’s question time in January, less than two months ago, and I have over the past few years made a range of references with which I can supply Willie Rennie. It is obvious why we know that looking at figures over a term is important. It is because GERS publishes the figures for five years. Does not that give Willie Rennie a clue that the five-year figure is actually quite important?
Willie Rennie says that he does not like hearing about the £8 billion over the past five years. However, it is pertinent to the answer to his question. Instead of saying what we would have had to cut more than the UK over the past five years, I will say that we would have had either £8 billion less borrowing—which would have been a pretty good idea—£8 billion more investment or, which is the most likely, a combination of the two. If we had had access to that £8 billion, I am sure that even some of Johann Lamont’s “wee things” could have been done in Scottish society to generate more employment, to get more participation, and to make some progress towards the prosperous and just society that might or might not be in the Bible, but to which I am sure Willie Rennie aspires as much as I do.
Child Poverty
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Child Poverty Action Group’s finding that up to 100,000 children in Scotland could be pushed into poverty by 2020 as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s austerity measures. (S4F-01951)
It is unacceptable that any child should be living in poverty in a country that is as prosperous as Scotland is. In recent years, the number of children in child poverty has fallen because this Parliament, as a whole, has taken an approach that is focused on maximising household resources and improving children’s life chances. The forecast from a number of groups, including the Child Poverty Action Group, that up to 100,000 children in Scotland could be pushed into poverty by 2020 should give every single member of this Parliament great concern.
As people rightfully look favourably and positively at the better indications that we are seeing in the economy, which we have listed and which I debated with Willie Rennie a few seconds ago, they should also look carefully at the social aspects of the welfare changes that economic institutes and the Child Poverty Action Group are predicting for us.
Is it not a scandal that, 40 years on from the National Children’s Bureau report “Born to Fail”, so many of our children are still living in absolute poverty, with poor educational achievement, diminished job prospects and shortened life expectancy? Is it not now time that we took the powers over taxation and welfare into our own hands so that no more children are born to fail?
It is important to remind members of the progress that has been in made. In 2001, 27 per cent of children—280,000 children—were born into relative child poverty in Scotland. Progressively, over the years—particularly, it should be said, during the past few years—that number has been reduced to 15 per cent, or 150,000 children. I am sure that we would all say that we want the figure to be zero.
Substantial progress has been made over the lifetime of this Parliament, and it is very substantial progress from 21 per cent in 2006-07 to 15 per cent in 2011-12. However, the difficulty is that the Child Poverty Action Group forecasts that the greater part of that progress is at risk of being lost by 2020. That is the point. Regardless of people’s politics or views, are we going to tolerate a situation in which, according to the Child Poverty Action Group’s forecast, that progress will be reversed, or should we in this country take the ability to control the welfare system and ensure that, whatever else happens, the children of Scotland will not be made to suffer the brunt of the economic recession that we have endured?
The Deputy First Minister and I attended the launch of “Poverty in Scotland 2014” this morning, and CPAG made it clear that it does not want the Scottish Government’s focus on the independence debate to cloud its view of the things that we should be doing now. Given the things the Government can control now, such as the Scottish welfare fund and discretionary housing payments—things that can make a difference to households that have children—why can it not get money out of the door and into the pockets of the people who need it most?
The substantial majority of people across the voluntary sector appreciate and support the Scottish Government’s efforts to mitigate the impact of Westminster’s welfare changes. Jackie Baillie stands alone in not arguing that this Parliament and Government are doing everything that they can to take the edge off the welfare changes.
The ultimate reason why Jackie Baillie is in no position to deliver any strictures on the matter is that she is the one who said that although Scotland could control social security, it should not control social security. If she is prepared to maintain that position in the face of the forecasts, that tells us that she is someone who is prepared to put her constitutional obsession with the Westminster Government before the interests of the Scottish people.
Antisocial Behaviour Orders
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that antisocial behaviour orders are not breached. (S4F-01956)
The 2009 strategy for tackling antisocial behaviour, “Promoting Positive Outcomes”, marked a real shift in policy towards better solutions and recognised that prevention, early and effective intervention and diversion should be at the heart of approaches to tackling antisocial behaviour. The number of crimes recorded by Police Scotland as breaches of antisocial behaviour orders has fallen by 30 per cent from 2007-08 to 2012-13.
In 2005, Mr MacAskill described ASBOs as “a short-term fix”. On his watch, there have been more than 4,220 breaches of ASBOs, many of which are repeated breaches, and Government ignorance of the number of ASBOs currently issued in Scotland. Only two thirds of councils even bother to reply to freedom of information requests on the issue. Can the First Minister confirm whether tackling antisocial behaviour is still a priority for his Government today? Does he plan to implement any changes to deal with those breaches?
Is it not a good thing that we have had a fall of 30 per cent in the number of breaches from 2007-08 to 2012-13? If Graeme Pearson’s position is that the level is unacceptable and could be improved, I would certainly agree—let us see whether we can improve it further. Equally, however, it must be his position that the level that we inherited, which was 30 per cent higher, was an even worse situation. Perhaps he could have a conversation with people who were in government at that time, such as his leader.
Given that Graeme Pearson has great knowledge of these things, I know that he will acknowledge that recorded crime in Scotland is at its lowest level for 40 years—it is down by 35 per cent over that period. Above all, the statistics show that fear of crime is decreasing. Given his professional experience, he knows that fear of crime—people being worried about their safety—is hugely debilitating, particularly for older people in the population. Therefore, I know that the encouraging statistics that we are seeing on the decrease in the fear of crime and on people in Scotland being more positive about their local areas are things that he will be highly encouraged by—while, of course, urging the Government on to even greater improvements.
Housing Investment (Lloyds Bank Affordable Cities Review)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will take account of the findings of the Lloyds Bank affordable cities review when allocating housing investment. (S4F-01955)
We have introduced a formula for allocating housing resources on the basis of need. Affordability is certainly one of the factors that should be taken into account, along with deprivation, rural affairs and homelessness.
House prices in Aberdeen have almost doubled over the past 10 years, private sector rental rates are the highest in Scotland, and there is a lack of affordable social housing because of the Thatcher sell-offs. Will the First Minister assure me that Aberdeen’s almost unique circumstances will be taken into account when resources for investment in housing are allocated? Can more be done to boost mid-market rental opportunities?
I am pleased to tell Kevin Stewart that the new formula that I have described means that the share of affordable housing funding for Aberdeen’s local programme will increase by almost 25 per cent over the period between last year and 2017, which I think will be welcome news for people in Aberdeen.
In addition, Aberdeen benefits from schemes such as help to buy, the open market shared equity scheme and the innovative national housing trust initiative. Indeed, 85 homes for mid-market rent are being delivered through the trust initiative alone.
I am sure that the local member will welcome that news of the 25 per cent increase in funding for the affordable housing programme.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Greener Kirkcaldy