Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03298)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
After yesterday’s budget, we can start today on a consensual note. Both the First Minister and I agree that George Osborne’s spending plans are bad for Scotland. In fact, it was a typical Tory budget, with tax cuts for the top 15 per cent of earners but spending cuts for everyone else. When our schools are facing cuts and thousands of people are losing their jobs, a tax cut for high earners cannot be the priority. When the powers are devolved next year, Scottish Labour would reverse that tax cut for the top 15 per cent. Can the First Minister confirm whether the Scottish National Party would do the same?
We will set out our detailed income tax proposals early next week, and they will be based on our judgment of what is right for Scotland now and in the long term. However, let me be absolutely clear today: a large tax cut for 10 per cent, actually, of the population—those on the highest incomes—at a time when support for the disabled is being cut and our public services are under pressure is, in my view, the wrong choice. That money should be invested in our public services and in protecting the vulnerable. That is why I was so surprised yesterday to hear Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, say that he actually supports these tax cuts.
People listening will know that that was anything but a clear answer from the First Minister. [Interruption.]
Order.
Let me explain why. Nicola Sturgeon has said that this is the wrong choice, but she has not said that she would take a different one when she has the power to do so. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.
This is an important issue about our priorities. Scottish Labour is absolutely resolute and we have been so since October—we would reverse George Osborne’s tax cut for the top 15 per cent because, when classroom assistants are being cut and teachers are having to buy their own materials, when the gap between the richest and the poorest kids is as stubborn as ever and when thousands of people are losing their jobs because of cuts to councils, a tax cut for the better-off simply cannot be a priority. This Parliament should not be a conveyor belt for Tory austerity. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister has spent her entire career arguing that more powers mean fewer cuts. People deserve a clear answer, so I will ask her once again. Will she back Labour’s plans to reverse George Osborne’s tax cut for the top 15 per cent—yes or no?
If we can just dispense for a moment or two with the mock indignation, we should reflect on the fact that, for any fair-minded person who was actually willing to listen to my answer, it was a very, very clear answer indeed.
I said that the choice of giving a fairly hefty tax cut to 10 per cent of the population—the highest income earners in our country—was the wrong choice. I think that that is fairly clear. I then said that we will set out our plans for income tax early next week. I have always said that we would set them out prior to the dissolution of this Parliament, and that is what we will do. Finally, I said that I thought that we should and would choose to invest that money instead in our public services and protecting the vulnerable. I think that anybody who is fair minded who was listening to what I said will find that a very clear answer indeed.
That is why I say to Kezia Dugdale that, given that I am answering the question very clearly, perhaps she should not waste her energy on trying to persuade me of this argument. Instead, she should use her energy on trying to persuade Labour’s shadow chancellor, who said yesterday that Labour would support the increase in the 40p threshold.
Twice I have asked the First Minister—[Interruption.]
Order.
Twice I have asked the First Minister whether she will reverse George Osborne’s tax cut for the top 15 per cent, and both times she has told me that she does not support the plan. However, she has not yet said whether she would reverse it.
The new tax powers that are coming to Scotland give us a real opportunity to stop George Osborne’s cuts. I have already said that this Parliament is surely not a place that should pass on Tory austerity; instead, it should stop it. Faced with the choice between using the powers of this Parliament to invest and carrying on with the cuts, we can choose to use the powers.
If we cannot get a clear answer about the top 15 per cent, let us see whether we can get one about the very richest few. I believe that the top 1 per cent—or those who earn more than £150,000 a year—should pay more tax so that we can invest in education. Page 5 of last year’s Scottish National Party manifesto says:
“We will also vote for ... the reintroduction of the”
50p top rate of tax. Will this year’s manifesto make the same commitment?
The problem for Kezia Dugdale is that the people who are watching this are starting to laugh not with her but at her as she pointedly refuses to hear what I am saying. Let me try again—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister, Mr Bibby.
—and let me make it as simple as possible: the Scottish Government will set out our detailed income tax proposals early next week, before the dissolution of Parliament, as we have committed to doing.
Secondly, I have said and will say again—now, I think, for the third time—that the chancellor’s decision yesterday, in a budget in which he cut support for the disabled, confirmed that the Scottish Government’s budget between now and 2020 will reduce by £1 billion in real terms and piled more pressure on our public services, to give a large tax cut to the 10 per cent of the population at the highest end of the income spectrum is the wrong choice. Clearly if I think that it is the wrong choice, it is not a choice that I am going to make myself. Perhaps that is simple enough for Kezia Dugdale.
At a time when our services are under pressure, it is important that we protect our public services and, of course, protect the things that taxpayers in Scotland enjoy but which taxpayers in England do not, such as free education for young people going to university, free personal care for our older people and free medicines for people who are sick. I will continue to take decisions that are fair and balanced and which are in the interests of people across our country, in the interests of our public services and in the interests of our economy, and I will leave Labour to its increasingly desperate battle to hang on to second place.
I think that the people watching this at home are wondering why the First Minister of Scotland cannot answer a question with a simple yes or no. [Interruption.]
Order.
That answer was a bit like the First Minister’s answer about fracking. She says that she is highly sceptical, but she will not actually spell out how she will do it any differently.
The First Minister tells us that she is against the cuts and opposes Westminster’s austerity agenda, but when faced with a choice between using the powers of this Parliament to invest and carrying on with the cuts, she chooses cuts and refuses to use the powers. She has just stripped £500 million out of school budgets and vital public services; she will not confirm that she will reverse Osborne’s tax cut for the top 15 per cent; and she will not even commit to her manifesto pledge from last year on the 50p tax rate.
The powers of this Parliament mean that we can choose a different path from the Tories. We have a choice: we can either wring our hands and wave the cuts through, as the SNP chooses to do, or we can use the new tax powers to end austerity, which is what Labour argues for.
Is there any power that the First Minister is prepared to use to stop the cuts?
Kezia Dugdale’s line of questioning reminds me of the Labour Party in Scotland in general—it is going absolutely nowhere. When Kezia Dugdale was scripting these questions, you would think that she would have factored in the possibility that I would answer the question at the first time of asking, and that she would have the ability to amend her subsequent questions.
Let me say, for the fourth time, that I think that George Osborne’s decision to cut taxes for the 10 per cent of the population at the highest end of the income spectrum is the wrong choice, and that I will not take the same choice. I have said that four times; surely somebody on the Labour benches must have understood me. [Interruption.]
Order.
Unlike Labour, I have also set out what I will do with local taxation. We have not heard Labour comment on that yet. I have set out plans for local taxation and, in a few days, I will set out plans for income tax. Taken together, those plans will be fair, reasonable and balanced, and they will protect our public services and our economy. I will continue to argue in favour of that position, and perhaps that is why trust for this Scottish Government is at an all-time high. Perhaps Kezia Dugdale will want to reflect on that when she continues in opposition, on whatever side of the chamber that might be.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-03299)
Tonight.
Many of the income tax decisions that were announced in the budget yesterday will not apply to Scotland’s workers. Such decisions will be for this Parliament to make, and they require serious analysis and proper thought. Last year, the Scottish Conservatives brought together an independent commission of experts to study that issue in detail, and their recommendations were published in January.
The First Minister has at her disposal a team of economic advisers, as well as an army of civil servants. What detailed analysis has she published about how we can use the new tax powers to strengthen Scotland’s economy?
As I said to Kezia Dugdale, we will set out our proposals on income tax early next week. When we do that, we will set out the analysis that backs up the decisions that we will take on income tax.
It is interesting that Ruth Davidson says that she appointed a commission to look into how we can best use new income tax powers for Scotland. From what she has said, it seems that she does not propose to use those powers at all and that she will simply mimic George Osborne. That is the wrong choice for Scotland.
It is obvious that no analysis or evidence base has been put forward. Incredibly, if we run through the minutes of meetings of the First Minister’s Council of Economic Advisers from any point in the past year, we see that the new tax powers do not even merit discussion. That was evident yesterday, when we saw the Deputy First Minister on the television looking like a rabbit in the headlights as he talked about how those powers will be used.
I do not want to see a sign at the border that says “Higher taxes here”. I think that that is the wrong choice for Scotland, and I am not the only one who thinks that. In this morning’s press, Jack Perry, the former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, wrote:
“a further tax grab ... will only weaken our tax base and depress the economy. That will do nothing to help support schools, hospitals and an ageing population.”
Mr Perry ran Scotland’s main enterprise body for five and a half years. He is not a politician. I ask the First Minister: why is he wrong?
As I have said repeatedly, I will set out my proposals on income tax. It is interesting that Ruth Davidson is not proposing to use the income tax powers. Over the past year, how many times has she stood over there and said to me, “The time is soon when we will all have to decide how we will use the income tax powers”? Yet, as she confirmed at her conference, she is not proposing a single iota of difference from George Osborne’s tax proposals.
Ruth Davidson led the troops up to the top of the hill, promising a 30p tax band but, when she got them there, she said that she was going to march them straight back down again. She is going to mimic George Osborne; I am going to take the decisions that are right for Scotland.
If Ruth Davidson wants to talk about differences between Scotland and England, I will give her some. If someone is a taxpayer in Scotland, their children do not pay for a university education, unlike in England. If someone is a taxpayer in Scotland, they do not pay for personal care for their elderly parents, unlike in England. If someone is a taxpayer in Scotland, they get medicines free when they are sick, unlike in England.
Those are some of the benefits that taxpayers in Scotland get—unlike those in England—but which Ruth Davidson wants to take away. Perhaps she will answer this: how much do the Tories think that people should pay for a university education and how much would she have the prescription charge return to? Let us have some answers from her before she has the nerve to stand here and lecture anyone else.
We have some constituency questions.
Earlier today, I received notification that Z Hinchliffe & Sons, which is a textile company with a factory in Dalry in my constituency, began this morning to issue 90-day redundancy notices to its 86 employees, although the factory has been in full operation throughout an initial 30-day consultation period. The company claims to be in negotiations with a potential buyer but has refused to name that buyer or allow Scottish Enterprise to help find another. The management, which is based in Huddersfield, has also refused to let the partnership action for continuing employment team into the factory to speak to the workers. Given those circumstances, what pressure can be put on Z Hinchliffe to ensure that the workforce is given the assistance that it needs and deserves at this difficult time?
I am aware of the developing situation at Z Hinchliffe in Dalry and I was concerned when I learned about it. This is an anxious time for the company’s employees, their families and the local community. Fergus Ewing will be engaging directly with the business and I assure Kenny Gibson that we will do everything that we can to ensure that the workforce is given the assistance that it needs and deserves at this difficult time. I undertake today to ensure that Fergus Ewing keeps the member fully updated about those discussions.
The First Minister will be aware that Longannet power station in my constituency will close at the end of the month, with the loss of 236 jobs locally and more than 1,000 jobs across central Scotland in the supply chain. A £9 million economic recovery plan has been drawn up by Fife Council, Clackmannanshire Council and Falkirk Council. The plan is vital to the long-term economic regeneration of the area, as it will enable recovery from what will be a devastating blow to Kincardine and surrounding communities.
I was disappointed to hear this week from Fife Council leader David Ross that the plan is not going to be funded by the Scottish Government. Will the First Minister please reconsider that decision before Longannet closes on 31 March, to ensure that the communities that I represent have a fighting chance of recovery?
We established the multiagency, multipartner task force to consider such issues when the decision about Longannet’s future was announced. We continue to engage with Fife Council about proposals to support economic regeneration and recovery in the area. We have also been working through the task force and our PACE organisation to help individuals into alternative employment, and I understand that many of the individuals who were employed in Longannet have been able to move into alternative employment. We will continue to engage with the local council through the task force, and with members who represent the area, to ensure that we are doing everything possible and appropriate to help individuals and the local economy.
The First Minister will be aware of the announcement by ClydeUnion Pumps, which is part of the SPX group and is based in my constituency, that consultations have begun with unions on the prospect of the company making 114 workers redundant. If that comes to pass, it will mean that more than one third of the workforce has gone in the past 12 months, after the loss of 90 jobs last year.
Given the company’s importance to my constituency—for example, my mother and my brother worked in it—and the fact that, starting as Weir Pumps, the plant has stood on Newlands Road since 1886, will the First Minister tell me what the Scottish Government can do to help the workers who are threatened with redundancy and to help the company through the temporary downturn in the oil and gas industry?
I am acutely aware of the situation and of the impact that it will have on those who work there, their families and the local area. Indeed, as the MSP for the neighbouring constituency, I know the importance of the employer and how long-standing its presence has been in the south side of Glasgow.
I can tell James Dornan that Scottish Enterprise met the company yesterday to explore all possible options for supporting the business and retaining its highly skilled employees. Our PACE team has also been in contact with the company and is offering support for affected employees. It will remain in contact with the company and employees throughout the consultation period. We will do everything possible to ensure that all options are explored and that the workforce is given all the support that it expects and deserves at this time.
Commission on Widening Access (Response)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the final report of the commission on widening access. (S4F-03307)
I warmly welcome the report from the commission on widening access, which was published on Monday. Let me take the opportunity to thank Dame Ruth Silver, the chair of the commission, and all the commission members for the very good work that they have done.
I have repeatedly made clear my personal commitment and ambition—indeed, the commitment and ambition of this Government—that every young person, no matter their background, will have an equal chance of going to university, if that is what they choose to do. That is why we immediately accepted the commission’s recommended targets—to maintain the urgency and focus that are needed so that by 2030 students from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds should represent 20 per cent of entrants to higher education. We will now consider the other findings and recommendations carefully. If we are re-elected, we will bring forward a full response very early in the next session of Parliament.
Widening access must be tackled right from the start of schooling. Having seemingly abandoned the area-based approach to raising attainment in schools, which ignored the needs of too many children in too many parts of the country, will the First Minister now accept that our idea of a pupil premium is the best approach for the whole of Scotland?
Given how important colleges are as a gateway to learning, and having rejected our penny for education proposal, how will the First Minister prevent her damaging cuts to council education budgets and colleges from undermining efforts to meet her new university targets?
First, Liam McArthur is right to say that dealing with the issue of access to university does not just require the efforts and inputs of universities; it requires all of us, right across the system, to play a part. That is why the commission was right to call it a “whole system problem” that needs a whole-system solution.
As for the rest of Liam McArthur’s question, we have not abandoned anything. Our attainment fund, which was doubled by the Deputy First Minister in the budget, will continue to provide dedicated support to primary schools in our most deprived communities. It is already providing support to more than 300 primary schools across the country. In addition, we will extend the reach of our attainment fund, using the £100 million that is going to be raised every year through reforms that we have announced to local taxation. That money will be allocated to schools on the basis of eligibility for free school meals. It will go directly to schools—directly to headteachers—on the basis of greatest need. Taking together what the Deputy First Minister announced in the budget and what I announced at the weekend, if we are re-elected, over the life of the next Parliament there will be an additional three quarters of a billion pounds spent specifically on attainment in our schools.
One of the commission’s recommendations was that care-experienced young people who find their way to university should be supported by a full grant while they are there. That recommendation will certainly be part of Scottish Labour’s manifesto. Will the First Minister commit to it too?
It is a good recommendation, and I will set out our response to it over the next few weeks of the election campaign. Actually, Iain Gray is not describing the recommendation as fully as he could have. It does not just talk about grants versus loans for students with care experience; It also says that where students with an experience of care meet minimum access requirements, they should be guaranteed a place at university. I think that those are sensible recommendations that can have an impact on our goal of making sure that there is equal access to university. We will consider them very carefully.
One concern that the report expressed was that some schools do not have a sufficient number of teachers to be able to offer some highers and some advanced highers. What is the Scottish Government doing about that situation?
Many suggestions have been made by many different people about how we make sure that, as part of ensuring equal access to university, all young people have access to the subjects when they are at school. One suggestion that I think has particular merit—not just because it helps ensure equal access but for other reasons as well—is schools working much more in clusters, so that when a particular subject might not be offered in one school, it can be accessed in another school.
The commission and others that have an interest are doing a lot of serious work. The output of all the work will certainly be reflected in my party’s manifesto. As I said, if we are re-elected, we will introduce a full and comprehensive response to the commission’s report early in the next session of Parliament.
One of the report’s recommendations is that those who compile key university rankings should
“ensure greater priority is given to socioeconomic diversity within the rankings”
and that the institutions that take those actions should not be penalised. What is the Government’s view on that? How can we allay universities’ concerns about the ranking implications?
I strongly agree with what the report says on that issue. It is essential that university rankings are not compiled in such a way that universities find themselves penalised for doing the right things to widen access to students from our more deprived areas.
Our world-class higher education system is—rightly—a source of great pride to us. Rankings are, understandably, important to institutions’ reputation and income. The report makes it clear that a strong and growing body of evidence suggests that socioeconomic diversity improves standards and the education experience of all students. Therefore, universities should be credited not penalised if they make their student body more diverse in that respect. That strong recommendation is backed by strong analysis. It will form part of our response to the report early in the next session of Parliament should we be re-elected.
United Kingdom Budget (Response)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the United Kingdom budget. (S4F-03309)
As a result of yesterday’s budget, between now and 2020 Scotland will see a £1 billion real-terms cut from the day-to-day budget that pays for our public services. That is before the impact of the hidden £3.5 billion cuts in the budget is fully understood. Yesterday’s budget statement delivers very little for Scotland. The modest consequentials that we receive are almost certainly wiped out by the increase in public sector employer pension contribution costs from 2019.
Presiding Officer, as you will have heard me say in earlier stages of these exchanges, we will continue to do everything in our powers to protect the most vulnerable from austerity measures and to protect our public services and our economy.
Does the First Minister agree that this budget will hammer society’s poorest and disabled while helping higher earners? Cutting the employment and support allowance by £30, and changing the eligibility to personal independence payments, which will slash £130 million-worth of support to disabled people in Scotland, will have a hugely damaging impact on those affected. It is a typical Tory action by a savage Tory chancellor.
Yes, I agree. The changes to personal independence payments are cruel on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. In Scotland, they will result in about 40,000 disabled people being made worse off. Of that 40,000, two thirds could be worse off by almost £3,000 a year; the remainder could be worse off by almost £1,500 a year.
When the changes were first proposed in January, the Scottish Government, alongside disabled people and a range of charities for the disabled, made clear to the UK Government that we were fundamentally opposed to the changes, which would narrow the eligibility for benefits that support disabled people in their daily lives. We will continue to press that case. As power over disability benefits comes to this Parliament, we build a social security system that treats people, particularly our disabled people, with the dignity and the respect that they deserve.
Cancer Patients (Access to Diagnostic Tests)
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that all cancer patients have timely access to diagnostic tests. (S4F-03303)
Our new £100 million cancer strategy was published by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport on Tuesday. It aims to improve prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment and after care for those affected by that devastating disease.
Of the funding, £50 million will be used to deliver an additional 2,000 diagnostic scopes a year and to fund additional diagnostic capacity to ensure that people who are suspected of having cancer receive swift access to the diagnostic tests that they urgently need.
I believe that this might be Malcolm Chisholm’s last appearance at First Minister’s question time, unless he has questions planned for me next week. Just in case he has not, if you will allow me, Presiding Officer, I would like to recognise his service not just to this Parliament, but to the national health service.
When Malcolm Chisholm was health minister, among his other achievements, he abolished trusts in Scotland and he brought the Golden Jubilee hospital back into public ownership. Those are landmark achievements. I thank him for his service and take the opportunity to wish him well for the future. [Applause.]
I thank the First Minister for her very kind words. I was going to say as a preamble that I think that there has been great progress in cancer care during the years of the Scottish Parliament under this and the previous Administration.
Today, I want to highlight Cancer Research UK’s campaign, Scotland vs cancer, and ask whether the First Minister agrees that it has been right to highlight the long waits that some people have for diagnostic tests. I welcome the measures that she referred to and the cancer strategy that was published this week, but will she give us a bit more detail on the timescale for the proposed changes and the effect that she thinks they will have?
I do agree with Cancer Research UK. Obviously we need to make sure that we have first-class care and treatment of people who are diagnosed with cancer. However, what we need to do most is to make sure that we maximise our efforts to prevent it and to diagnose it as quickly as possible, so that people get access to the best care as quickly as possible. That is why our detect cancer early programme is so vitally important.
Waiting times at all stages of the cancer journey are much shorter than they have been in previous years, but, particularly in relation to diagnosis, we are determined to go further. That is why the actions that I outlined in my earlier answer are so important.
On timescales, this is a cancer strategy that we will start to implement immediately. As well as the additional diagnostic capacity that I spoke about, we will also invest to increase the capacity for radiotherapy treatment. As technology develops, that becomes more and more important in the treatment of cancer.
Whether on prevention, diagnosis or world-class treatment, we have to make sure that we are doing everything possible to continue to reduce deaths from cancer. There can be few things that are more important to any Parliament, anywhere.
Film Studio
To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government expects a new film studio for Scotland to be delivered. (S4F-03319)
The Scottish Government, with Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland, is firmly committed to supporting the growth of the screen sector in Scotland. That is underlined by the record £24.1 million awarded to support the sector in 2014-15 and the extra £4.75 million that we announced last year across three new funds.
I am pleased to say that proposals from Wardpark Studios Ltd for a permanent film studio in Cumbernauld are now progressing well, and a planning application for extensive development of facilities was submitted to North Lanarkshire Council on 11 March. We hope and expect that the new studio will be operational no later than the end of 2017.
The First Minister will be aware that the film industry in Scotland has made very clear its dismay at the non-delivery of a long-awaited film studio. Last week the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs told us that the Scottish Government would be supporting an extension to the Wardpark facility in Cumbernauld by 30,000 square feet, but we do not know when, or indeed if, that will actually be delivered. In the meantime the Scottish Government is sitting on a planning application for a 230,000 square feet facility at Straiton.
What confidence can we have in the Scottish Government that something will actually and eventually be delivered that meets the industry’s needs?
It is certainly true that Murdo Fraser did not know when it would be delivered before I answered his first question, but he should know now—no later than the end of 2017.
Everybody else is hearing me today, are they not?
Members: Yes.
Because Kezia Dugdale certainly did not appear to be, and now Murdo Fraser does not appear to be hearing me either.
Look, the issue is seriously important. I represent the south side of Glasgow, which is home to places such as Film City. I understand absolutely, and plenty of people remind me—rightly—of the importance of the film industry and the screen sector in Scotland. I am not going to comment on Pentland studios for the reason that Murdo Fraser cited; it is subject to a planning application at the moment and it would be wrong for me to comment on that.
We think that the progress around Cumbernauld is very positive and I hope that we continue to see that move forward, so that we have a fully operational film studio—let me say this again—no later than the end of 2017.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Food