Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02518)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
On 8 January, Alex Salmond told The Courier that the Scottish National Party would contest the general election arguing that “full fiscal autonomy” should replace the Barnett formula. Did Mr Salmond speak for the First Minister on that issue?
Here is another hold-the-front-page moment: I believe that Scotland should be in charge of our own resources.
Labour is trying to divert attention from something rather embarrassing that happened this week. Labour has a cheek to come here and throw bogus accusations at the SNP—as I am sure that Kezia Dugdale is about to—when on Tuesday this week Scottish Labour MPs trooped through the lobbies of the House of Commons with the Conservatives to vote for an additional £30 billion-worth of cuts. That is what we face if Labour gets its way. It is far better for Scotland to be in charge of our own resources.
I will not take a lecture from a First Minister who cannot even spend the money that she has. What is more, the Labour Party stands for a 50p tax, a mansion tax and a bankers tax—all things that the Tories do not support and neither, by the way, does the SNP.
On the radio this morning, Fergus Ewing said that the oil crisis is the
“most serious jobs situation Scotland has faced in living memory”
and yesterday the First Minister said that jobs were under threat. That begs the question why she took so long to find Aberdeen on a map.
During her visit, the First Minister admitted that falling oil prices posed a threat to jobs in Scotland. Will she admit that falling oil prices pose a risk to revenues as well?
I remind members across the chamber exactly what Labour stands for. Here it is: the Tories’ “Charter for Budget Responsibility”—[Interruption.]
Order!
—which the Tories themselves say demands £30 billion of additional cuts. That is what Labour voted for with the Conservatives in the House of Commons this week.
Diane Abbott, Labour MP, said that in doing so Labour had done a “great disservice” to hardworking people across the country. The only Labour MP in Scotland who had the gumption to vote against Tory cuts was Katy Clark, Kezia Dugdale’s opponent for deputy leader. I am sure that a few Labour members today are wondering whether they picked the wrong person.
Let us get on to the serious issue of the jobs concerns in the North Sea. It is because there is a serious concern that yesterday I established a jobs task force to work to maintain employment levels in the North Sea, give practical assistance to those who face the prospect of redundancy and give a guarantee to every apprentice working in the oil and gas sector of continuing employment or training. People want that kind of practical help from the Scottish Government, not the petty political point scoring that we are getting from Labour.
Thousands of jobs are at risk in the North Sea and Nicola Sturgeon’s priority is to have a pop at the Labour Party.
The First Minister spent two years telling us how important the Barnett formula is to Scotland. I agree, and the Bank of England governor’s comments yesterday show how important being part of the United Kingdom is for Scotland. The reality of the First Minister’s plan for full fiscal autonomy is that it would trade the stability of Barnett for the instability of oil prices. What assessment has the First Minister made of the cost to public spending in Scotland of her plan to bin Barnett?
Westminster parties really have no shame—[Interruption.]
Order.
If their argument—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr Baker!
If their argument is that Scotland’s finances are not equipped to cope with a period of low oil prices, the simple fact is that that is a direct result of decades of Westminster mismanagement. Does Kezia Dugdale never ask herself why we never hear anyone question Norway’s ability to run its own affairs during periods of low oil prices? It is because Norway has accumulated a £500 billion oil fund. By contrast, Westminster parties have raked in £300 billion from the North Sea and have not saved a single penny. If the problem is Westminster mismanagement, it strikes me as incredible to suggest that the solution is even more Westminster mismanagement.
On the past two or three years, let me tell Kezia Dugdale what this Government has been doing to help the sector in the North Sea. In 2011 we voted against the 12 per cent hike in the supplementary charge, which has crippled exploration and investment in the North Sea. Labour did not vote against it. Labour has been silent as we have been calling for the tax change that the industry told me yesterday that it desperately needs.
Why does the Scottish Labour Party not get behind the efforts of the Scottish Government and desist from petty political point scoring?
It is a new First Minister but it is the same old song.
At my first outing at First Minister’s question time, I offered the First Minister the Labour benches’ support if she could tell us specifically what she was asking the United Kingdom Government to do. Since then, Jim Murphy has written to Nicola Sturgeon twice to ask her to spell out what she wants from the UK Government, and twice she has failed to respond—we checked that again this morning.
The First Minister’s figures on how much money we would have to spend on public services have been out by billions in the past two years. The experts tell us that Barnett is worth £16 billion for Scotland. The First Minister continues to base her economic and social policy on an oil price that is double the reality. Is it not the case that, although Nicola Sturgeon thinks that it is smart for the SNP’s election campaign, her plan to bin Barnett is downright bad for Scotland?
Kezia Dugdale says that she does not know what the Scottish Government is specifically asking the UK Government to do to help the North Sea industry, so let me repeat it for her—Fergus Ewing said it in Parliament in a statement just last week.
First, we want a general investment allowance, which our modelling shows could protect 26,000 jobs every year. We want that allowance to be basin wide, as does the industry. Secondly, we want a reversal of the increase in the supplementary charge. Our modelling shows that that could protect up to 5,600 jobs every year. Thirdly, we want the UK Government to introduce an exploration tax credit. When Norway did that in 2005, the rate of exploration increased fourfold.
Those are the practical measures that we are calling for. If Kezia Dugdale has not heard them, I really do not think that she has been listening hard enough.
When it comes to the fiscal future of Scotland, let me repeat this point: this week, Labour trooped through the lobbies in the House of Commons—[Interruption.]
Order.
Labour members trooped through the lobbies, with their allies in the Conservative Party, to impose £30 billion of additional cuts on Scotland. That is what will have an impact on Scotland’s public services and Scotland’s economy, and Scottish Labour MPs should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02515)
No immediate plans.
Two years ago, this Scottish National Party Government started producing a series of oil and gas bulletins to predict the tax revenues from the North Sea. Those bulletins allowed SNP ministers to tell Scotland that
“There can be little doubt that Scotland is moving into a second oil boom.”
We all wish that that was true, but it is not. However, anyone who questioned it was shouted down.
The issue matters because, today, again, the First Minister has confirmed that, after the general election, the Scottish Government wants to get rid of the block grant and use oil to pay for Scotland’s schools and hospitals. We might think, therefore, that it would want figures to show how much revenue that would raise in the coming years. Can the First Minister confirm today that the Scottish Government has now decided to stop publishing those bulletins?
No. We will publish an oil and gas bulletin in due course. [Laughter.]
There is a serious point to be made. In order to predict tax revenues from the North Sea, we have first to know what the tax rates that will apply to the North Sea are going to be. That brings us right back to the point that we are making. The United Kingdom Government has not yet told us what the position will be on the supplementary charge, on an investment allowance or on exploration tax credits. If Ruth Davidson wants to join me in calling today on the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to stop prevaricating and introduce the tax changes that the industry is crying out for, I will welcome her support.
I am pleased to hear the First Minister say that the SNP Government is going to produce further oil and gas bulletins. That response seems to be slightly at odds with her oil minister’s answer to a parliamentary question that was lodged by my colleague on 18 December, which did not say the same thing. I am happy to make that answer public through the Scottish Parliament information centre.
I would like to know whether future oil and gas bulletins will use exactly the same methodology as the ones that suggested that there would be a second oil boom for Scotland.
I welcome not just the bulletin but all concrete steps to help the oil and gas industry, including the task force that the First Minister is setting up. However, I note that it seems to be reporting to a body whose stated remit is to allow “rapid response” to oil industry needs, but which has not met in seven months.
When it comes to oil, this Government has inflated the figures for political ends and its response has been insufficient and, frankly, anything but rapid.
Yes—let us all work together on short-term issues. However, given that there is an industry in crisis, jobs are being lost and the governor of the Bank of England is saying that Scotland’s spending is being protected from such a crash, does the First Minister agree that it is only damaging to talk of ripping the industry out of its current UK framework?
First, I welcome Ruth Davidson’s commitment to support all practical measures. It is certainly a welcome change of attitude from a supporter of a UK Government that increased the supplementary charge from 20 per cent to 32 per cent, which has had a damaging impact on the industry.
On the first part of her question, the task force that I established yesterday will meet before the end of this month. It will report to the Scottish energy advisory board, which will meet on 16 February—the same day as the Scottish Cabinet will be in Aberdeen—under my chairmanship.
This Government will do everything that we can to help the industry during this period, and we will continue to consider all practical suggestions for what we can do.
When I met industry representatives yesterday, they were universal in their demand for action from the UK Government. They want action now—not sometime in the future—on tax and on accelerating the pace of implementation of the new oil and gas authority, which will be the new regulator for the industry.
Instead of coming here—as she does because it is First Minister’s question time—and suggesting that those things lie within my gift, Ruth Davidson would be far better advised to join me in calling on the UK Government to get its act together and implement the changes now. If she does so, she will have not only my support but the support of the industry.
The First Minister will be aware of the announcement of job losses at BP, which is headquartered at Dyce in my constituency, and that today’s Press and Journal has suggested that Premier Oil, which is based at Kingswells in my constituency, might follow suit.
I welcome the establishment of the energy jobs task force. How will it interact with those companies and the affected employees? Many of my constituents will be affected by the announcements.
The task force will implement a co-ordinated response to the current challenges with all partners in Government, our agencies, the trade unions and industry working together across the sector to maintain jobs and to mitigate the potential impact of any losses. The task force will decide how best to address specific circumstances and will liaise with the companies and the individual employees concerned to identify what practical advice and assistance might be provided. In the process of doing that, they will raise awareness of existing initiatives and of the support that is available from organisations including Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Development International, Skills Development Scotland, local authorities and partnership action for continuing employment. Crucially, the task force will have a role in matching skills requirements to market demand, and will encourage the industry subsectors to collaborate to ensure that core transferable skills are retained here in Scotland.
Over the past few days, the people of Malawi have been affected by severe flooding in a number of areas in the south of the country and in Rumphi and Karonga in the north. It is reported that at least 48 people have been killed and that 69,000 people have lost their homes or been forced from them. The President has declared a state of natural disaster and has appealed for international help to provide shelter, food and basic sanitation in the affected areas. It is rightly said that it is the poorest and most vulnerable people who are most affected by climate change. In Malawi this week, unfortunately, we have the proof of that.
I ask the First Minister to say what additional help the Government can provide at this time, and to put on the record the Parliament’s solidarity with our colleagues and friends in Malawi who are struggling to deal with the consequences of the disaster.
I commend Patricia Ferguson for raising this important issue in Parliament. I am sure that I speak on behalf of everybody in the chamber when I say that our thoughts are very much with the people of Malawi. I have no hesitation in expressing solidarity with Malawi, as Patricia Ferguson has asked me to do, not just on behalf of the Parliament but on behalf of the entire Scottish nation.
Patricia Ferguson will be well aware of the very good work that the Scottish Government does in Malawi. We stand ready to help with the current situation in any way that we can. It may be helpful if Patricia Ferguson were to meet Fiona Hyslop and Humza Yousaf, the ministers who have responsibility for these matters, both to hear what the Scottish Government is doing and might be able to do, and to pass on her suggestions and those of others to help to develop our thinking on the matter.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02516)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
I think that an oil worker in Aberdeen who is about to lose their job would be appalled by what we have witnessed over the past 20 minutes. The First Minister’s response has been completely inadequate. We are all interested in the future of the oil sector, and to claim otherwise lets her down. [Interruption.]
Order.
Working in partnership is essential. I was pleased to see the establishment of the Scottish Government’s task force yesterday, but I was surprised that United Kingdom bodies such as Jobcentre Plus, the Department of Energy and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills were excluded. I invite the First Minister to open up the task force to include all those who have an interest in the future of that important sector.
I agree with Willie Rennie in many respects, including the tenor of his question. I believe that the most important thing that we have to deal with right now is the jobs situation, which is why yesterday I announced the jobs task force and the apprenticeship guarantee. The first question that I was asked was not about jobs; it was an attempt to score political points. I am glad that Willie Rennie has brought us back to the question of jobs.
Nobody is being excluded from membership of the task force. I want to ensure that we work with all interested parties and everybody who has a contribution to make. As Willie Rennie has just heard, we are making specific calls on the United Kingdom Government for the action that we believe it should take, but I am also open to the UK Government’s contributing to the work that we are doing. I am happy to take forward Willie Rennie’s suggestion in that spirit.
If the First Minister is changing the Government’s policy to include Jobcentre Plus, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Energy, I welcome that. However, that is not what she said on television last night, when she deliberately excluded those organisations from having a role in the task force.
She started her premiership by claiming that she wanted consensus, but all she seems to be interested in now is exclusion. When so many people’s jobs are at stake, will she change her mind and clarify whether Jobcentre Plus, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Energy will be included? That is what Parliament wants to hear.
I do not know what Willie Rennie thinks he saw on television last night, but I said nothing at any point yesterday that excluded anybody from the work of the task force. In direct answer to Willie Rennie’s question, I say yes—I would welcome the contribution of all the agencies that he has spoken about, and we will seek to procure the engagement of those agencies.
Willie Rennie might be interested to know that, with the recent jobs task force that the Government established in relation to the closure and job losses at Vion, the Scottish Government worked seamlessly with the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus. Our record says that when it comes to protecting jobs and standing up for crucial sectors of our economy, this Government will work with anyone. Therefore, I will be happy to have the contribution from all those agencies and departments that Willie Rennie has spoken about. Instead of continuing to suggest that there is some disagreement between us, he should be welcoming the outbreak of consensus on that point.
National Health Service (Front-line Services)
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support national health service front-line services. (S4F-02522)
The Scottish Government has protected and increased NHS Scotland’s front-line budget, which has enabled boards to increase NHS staffing to a record level. That has been achieved against a backdrop of the current Westminster Government’s slashing of our fiscal resource budget by 10 per cent. This week, we announced a further uplift for NHS territorial boards of £65 million in the next financial year, which will ensure that all boards’ funding increases by at least 1 per cent above the rate of inflation.
Given that 60 per cent of the cuts to the Scottish revenue budget that are being imposed by Westminster are still to come, does the First Minister agree that, to give the NHS, its dedicated staff and the people who use it day in and day out the certainty that they need for the future, all parties in this chamber should commit to increasing the NHS revenue budget in real terms for the remainder of this session of Parliament and for each and every year in the next session?
Yes, I agree strongly with that. That is exactly why we have committed to increasing the NHS budget in real terms, not only for the remainder of this session of Parliament but for each and every year of the next session. That commitment to the resource budget of the NHS is extremely important for planning purposes, and it is incumbent on every party in the chamber to give an unequivocal commitment to match those plans so that our NHS has that degree of certainty for the years ahead.
Does the First Minister anticipate further pressure on NHS services over the next few weeks?
The NHS always works under pressure. It has worked under pressure since the day and hour that it was established in 1948 but, under pressure, it does a fantastic job. Those working on the front line do a fantastic job.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport and I closely engage with and have oversight of the current winter pressures that the NHS is coping with, and we will continue to do that. Yesterday, the health secretary spoke in the chamber of our determination to learn for the future and to look at what we can do better with NHS boards to prepare even better for winter. Given that we are still in the grip of winter, it is important for all of us in the Parliament to record our thanks to all our staff across the NHS for the fantastic work that they are doing.
Budget Underspend
To ask the First Minister for what reason the Scottish Government’s budget underspends have increased over the last few years when its budgets have been reduced. (S4F-02525)
I am glad at last to hear Jackie Baillie at least acknowledge the fact that the Scottish Government’s budgets have been reduced. In fact, over the current spending review period, we face a real-terms cut in our fiscal departmental expenditure limit budget of about 10 per cent, with our capital budget being cut by over a quarter in real terms. As we have just heard, Labour has signed up to continue with those cuts by voting for the Tory budget plans this week.
On the budget underspend, the claims that I have heard from the Labour Party go some way to explaining why Labour is no longer in charge of our public finances. In terms of the money that the Scottish Government actually has discretion over, the underspend amounts to £145 million, which is 0.5 per cent of our budget. As John Swinney told Parliament in June, every penny of that will be spent this year. By contrast, by the time that the last Labour Government left office in 2007, it had accumulated an underspend of £1.5 billion.
That—[Interruption.]
Order.
The budget underspend has risen to £444 million. That is double the amount in the previous financial year. That has happened at a time when teacher numbers are being cut, college places have been slashed and police stations have been closed the length and breadth of the country. When John Swinney said,
“Long gone are the days when hundreds of millions of pounds of government money would be underspent each year, doing nothing to help communities around the country”,
was he just indulging in wishful thinking?
Jackie Baillie has just demonstrated why the entire country should cross its fingers and hope that she is never in charge of the Scottish Government’s budget. It is obvious from her question that there is one important fact that she, as Labour’s shadow finance spokesperson, does not understand. The figure that she cites is £444 million. Does she not know that 80 per cent of that figure reflects variances in annually managed expenditure programmes and other non-cash accounting budgets? Those are underspends of money over which the Scottish Government has no discretion; we cannot decide that it is spent in any other way.
That is a pretty basic fact about Scottish Government budgeting, and I suggest that if Jackie Baillie wants to go any further in the role that she is in, she does some studying and gets herself familiar with it. The underspend of money that we control is, as I said, £145 million, which is 0.5 per cent of our budget. I think that most people would describe that as prudent budgeting. Every single penny is being spent now to protect our public services. I will take John Swinney’s prudent stewardship of our budget over Jackie Baillie’s budgetary ignorance any day.
Is it true that, last year, the Scottish Government had an underspend of millions of pounds on the youth employment Scotland programme at a time when youth unemployment was more than 15 per cent?
Any underspend in the money for which the Scottish Government is responsible carries forward into this year to be fully spent on programmes of the type that Gavin Brown is talking about. Not a single penny of that money is lost to what the Scottish Government seeks to support.
Given the Scottish Government’s record on improving the position on youth employment and unemployment—there is still much work to do—Gavin Brown should welcome the initiatives that we are taking and, into the bargain, welcome the prudent financial stewardship of John Swinney, which has allowed us to do so much to help so many people throughout the country.
Terrorist Attacks in France
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government in light of the recent terrorist attacks in France. (S4F-02517)
Scottish Government officials have been in regular contact with UK Government counterparts and Police Scotland regarding the recent terrorist attacks in France and what the implications might be for Scotland. I have also been in contact with the French consul general and have written to President Hollande expressing Scotland’s support for, and solidarity with, the French people.
I thank the First Minister for some reassurance. It is clear that one of the most sensitive aspects of the current situation is the debate about a possible ban on extremist speakers at universities and other educational institutions. Will the First Minister confirm whether the Scottish Government is also engaged in those discussions with Universities UK and whether, prior to the new anti-terrorist legislation that is expected at the end of February, advice is being sought for Scottish educational institutions?
I thank Liz Smith for raising those concerns and for the way in which she did it.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill will require specified authorities such as further and higher education institutions to
“have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.”
There will be statutory guidance to those authorities on how they might exercise that duty. It is vital that the legislation is appropriate and proportionate to Scottish circumstances—I raised that point at the last meeting of the joint ministerial committee. Therefore, we are working closely with the UK Government to draft the guidance specifically for authorities in Scotland. Officials are linking closely with our stakeholders, including universities, to ensure that the draft guidance is fit for purpose.
I hope that that gives Liz Smith the reassurance that she was looking for. Obviously, the Government will keep the Parliament updated on the matter as appropriate.
When it comes to anticipating and preventing terrorism, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 the intelligence services can make an application for a warrant to intercept communications. What co-operation is there between the UK and Scottish Governments in that regard? Does the First Minister consider that that legislation, together with other legislation, is sufficient without even further legislation being introduced on such matters?
As the member is no doubt aware, all applications to intercept communications on national security grounds are a matter for the relevant secretary of state in the UK Government, so there would be no routine co-operation on such decisions.
I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would be happy to meet Christine Grahame to discuss how those decisions are taken and the division that exists between the various issues for which responsibility is devolved and those for which it is reserved. If that would be of interest to Christine Grahame, I am sure that Michael Matheson would be happy to accommodate such a meeting.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Living Wage