Engagements
Before we begin, Presiding Officer, I wish you, your staff and everyone in the chamber a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03130)
I also wish you, the Parliament and the people of Scotland a very merry Christmas. I bring with me an early Christmas present for the Opposition: I am losing my voice.
Later today, I have plans to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
For many people, the Christmas holidays are a chance to look back and reflect. One year ago today, the First Minister visited Castleview primary school, not far from here. She pledged that, under her Government, “no child” would be “left behind”. However, after nearly nine years in power, she will find that the gap between the richest and the rest remains as stubborn as ever.
In his budget yesterday, John Swinney announced massive cuts to the local councils that pay for our schools and are key to the education of our children. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimates that 15,000 jobs will be lost as a result of yesterday's budget. Can the First Minister tell us how many of those job losses will come from our schools?
Yesterday’s budget settlement was a tough one for local government—I make no bones about that. However, I want to put it in context. The net revenue reduction for local authorities next year will be £320 million. That amounts to a reduction of 2 per cent in the total expenditure of local authorities. It is a challenging settlement. However, that does not take account of the additional allocation that the Deputy First Minister announced yesterday of £250 million for social care. Previously, of course, it has been the sole responsibility of local authorities to fund social care. That is no longer the case. The national health service will now share that responsibility and, next year, will invest an additional £250 million in it.
Of course, the figures for the core budget of local authorities also do not take account of the additional £33 million that was announced by the Deputy First Minister yesterday specifically to tackle attainment and the attainment gap in our schools.
Yesterday, we set out the choices that we are making in the budget. The total Scottish budget will, over the next few years, decline as a result of cuts from Westminster, but we have set out our priorities, which I will be proud to take to the Scottish people.
If Kezia Dugdale wants to prioritise different things, she has an obligation to say exactly what those alternative priorities would be and—perhaps more important—to say where the money for those priorities would come from.
Our councils are central to the education of our children, but John Swinney’s budget pulled the rug out from under them. The reality is that Nicola Sturgeon cannot guarantee that the budget will not result in job losses for our specialist teachers, classroom assistants, janitors and office staff.
This week, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published a sobering report on the state of education in Scotland. The rest of the world is catching up with us, and is overtaking us in maths. Furthermore, yet again, the poorest children continue to be left behind. The report warned against a scattergun approach to education, so let us see how that £33 million is being spent.
A few weeks ago, I visited two schools in one building; Cochrane Castle primary school and St David’s primary school in Johnstone share a joint campus. The pupils use the same gym hall, the same dining hall and the same playground. Many of them come from the same streets. However, only one of those schools gets money from the Scottish Government’s attainment fund. One school gets funding to close the gap, but the other is left behind. Does the First Minister agree that that is just not fair?
If she has not already done so, I encourage Kezia Dugdale to read the OECD report in its entirety. If she does so, she will find that it has many positive things to say about Scottish education. For example, it says that we are above the international average when it comes to science and reading; it says that Scottish education is on an “upward trend of attainment”—I think that that is a direct quotation; it says that our schools are inclusive and it says that young people are positively engaged with education.
The OECD report also presents challenges to the Scottish Government and to everybody who cares about education. It praises curriculum for excellence and says that it is “at a watershed”. It endorses the approach that the Government is taking in introducing a national improvement framework with standardised assessment at its heart. Far from how Kezia Dugdale has characterised the OECD report, it is positive and sets out a clear path for further improvement and reform.
I have made very clear my priority when it comes to tackling the attainment gap. The budget that the Deputy First Minister set out yesterday sets aside funds to ensure that we are progressing the work to close the attainment gap. The £33 million that will be invested next year is part of a bigger programme of £100 million that is being invested over and above local authority school budgets to prioritise improvement in attainment. That is the commitment that this Government has made.
I say again to Kezia Dugdale that if she wants to come forward with proposals for the draft budget, suggesting that we spend additional money in any particular area of our responsibilities, she has an absolute entitlement to do so. However, when she does so, she also has an absolute responsibility to tell Parliament and the people of Scotland where in the budget the additional money would come from. I issue her with that invitation.
Scotland used to be able to boast that it had the best schools in the world. Today, the First Minister tells us to be glad that they are “above ... average”. Is that really the extent of our ambition? Under this Government, more than 6,000 children left primary school last year unable to read properly. That is 6,000 children who have spent every year of their primary education under this Government. The new powers that are heading our way give us the power and the chance to do something different; we do not just have to manage Tory austerity as yesterday’s SNP budget does. The First Minister wants a plan, so here is a plan: under Scottish Labour, headteachers would get £1,000 for every pupil from a deprived background. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the member.
We would hand real power to headteachers to decide how to improve the life chances of the children in their schools. It is a plan that would send funds to where they are needed most, and it would end the farce—like that in Johnstone—of two schools on a shared campus not both being entitled to the same support. Will the First Minister make a commitment today to back our plan to use the new tax powers to invest in our young people?
I will point out to Kezia Dugdale what the OECD report said. [Interruption.] I know that Labour members do not like to hear this kind of thing. The report said that, based on the action that the Government is taking through progressing with curriculum for excellence, the new national improvement framework and the introduction of our evaluation and assessment, Scottish education has the potential to become a world leader. That is what the OECD report says. I know that Labour members do not like that because it talks up the potential of Scotland, but it is a fact.
I invited Kezia Dugdale to put forward alternatives, but I also invited her to say where the money would come from. Unless she is going to tell me in her next question where, in the draft budget, the money to fund the proposal that she has just outlined to Parliament will come from, she does not deserve to be treated as though she has any credibility whatsoever.
Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister put forward a fully funded plan to tackle the attainment gap in Scottish education. That is the reality. Kezia Dugdale says that we should use the new tax powers. I ask her to give us a straight answer to this question. Is she saying that, next year, through the draft budget, the Scottish Government should put up the basic rate of income tax? That is a simple question. Let us hear a yes or no answer.
This really gets to the nub of the matter, because—[Interruption.] Yeah. Wait for it. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister tells us that she is a progressive, but every single time she is offered a progressive tax, she votes it down. She has done it four times in this chamber. I will tell her what is not credible. It is governing with a budget one year at a time, with no plan for the future, which is what this Government is doing.
It is clear from yesterday’s budget that this Government’s commitment to ending austerity does not extend much beyond the odd press release. The OECD last reviewed Scotland’s education system in 2007. Since then, the SNP Government has cut the number of teachers by 4,300, the number of qualified teachers in our nurseries has fallen and the gap between the richest and the rest remains as wide as ever. What is the SNP’s response to all that? It is to cut, cut and cut again. Why does this SNP Government appear to be content to let the next generation pay the price of austerity?
Kezia Dugdale said something correct in that last question—we are getting to the nub of the matter. On progressive taxes, as soon as John Swinney had the power, he introduced the progressive land and buildings transaction tax. Yesterday, he outlined plans to raise £130 million in additional revenue from business rates.
Here is the nub of the matter, though. Next year, the only way we could raise extra revenue from income tax would be to raise income tax at the basic rate and for the lowest-paid people in our society. Everybody who watches First Minister’s question time will have seen Kezia Dugdale, when faced with it, duck the question completely. That is the nub of the matter. [Interruption.]
Order.
Labour wants to tell us what it disagrees with, but when it comes to putting forward funded alternatives, Kezia Dugdale and Labour simply run for cover.
We have made our choices in the budget. Those choices are to protect the national health service, to protect social care, to protect educational attainment, to protect colleges, to protect university research and free tuition, to protect the police, to protect free personal care, to protect household budgets and to protect against Tory cuts through the welfare fund and by mitigating the bedroom tax. If the Opposition wants to make different choices, let it tell us what those choices are and—for once—let it tell us where it is going to get the money.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
May I add my Christmas wishes to those that have already been expressed by others? I know that the First Minister had the pleasure of meeting the Secretary of State for Scotland this morning, but I am obligated to ask.
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-03126)
The Deputy First Minister had the pleasure of meeting the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have no plans in the near future.
I had the pleasure—I will put it that way—of meeting the Prime Minister on Monday. All I will say is that when I went into Downing Street I did not have this stinking cold. I had it when I came out.
Another thing that is Westminster’s fault, First Minister. I will tell Dave to put the mistletoe away next time you visit.
At the unveiling of the Scottish budget yesterday, I was pleased to see that the SNP Government was going to pass on to hospitals an extra £440 million received through extra NHS spending in the block grant. However, that rather contradicts the Government’s central claims. Before the referendum last year, the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil, said that only a yes vote in the referendum could fully protect Scotland’s NHS. The day after the First Minister has allocated an extra £440 million to health, does she still really believe that leaving the United Kingdom is the only way to protect Scotland’s NHS?
I return to my favourite word of 2014: yes.
This is a bit rich coming from the Conservatives. Let us remember that, because our overall budget is still determined by the Tories at Westminster, it will be reduced by £1.2 billion in real terms between now and the end of this decade. Overall, by the end of the decade, our budget will have been cut by almost £4 billion in real terms since the Tories took office. That is the cost to this Government, Parliament and country of Conservative Government at Westminster. That is the reality.
Within that, we will ensure that we protect the priorities that we hold dear. That is why I am so proud that, yesterday, John Swinney announced extra funding of more than £500 million for our national health service, which takes the health budget in Scotland to almost £13 billion for the first time and proves, yet again, that the national health service is safe in the hands of this Government.
That was a nice try but it was not exactly backed up by the facts because the truth is that the First Minister’s failure to increase spending on the NHS at the same rate as the UK Government has done has cost Scotland’s health service almost £700 million over the past five years. However, as I said, it is Christmas and I am delighted that the Scottish Government has belatedly recognised that shortfall, is beginning to address it and has handed an extra £440 million to the NHS in Scotland. However, that happened under devolution, not independence.
The First Minister and her colleagues said that they could not protect the health service without independence but they have just increased its funding by £440 million under devolution. They said that they could not increase childcare without independence but the amount of childcare has gone up under devolution. They said that Scotland could not get a fairer deal on fishing without independence but, this week, we have just had a massive boost for our fishing communities. That is all good news and has all happened without independence.
As it is the season of goodwill, I wonder whether the First Minister could, just once, find it within herself to accept that she and her colleagues got it wrong or is it still the case that, when it comes to the Scottish National Party, it is always Westminster bad?
I am sorry, but I am losing my voice.
Ruth Davidson’s argument may be very, very contorted, as it certainly is, but in the spirit of Christmas, I will take a positive from it and thank her for setting out quite eloquently how well the Government is doing to protect the health service, protect and improve childcare and—I think that this was the third one—do so well by our fishing industry. I say thank you so much at this festive period to Ruth Davidson and the Tories for that vote of confidence in the Scottish Government. The next thing that they know, they will see themselves quoted on the SNP election leaflets.
Cabinet (Meetings)
I, too, wish everybody a good festive season. I hope that they have a fantastic break.
To ask the First Minister—[Interruption.]
Order.
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03127)
I did not think that Christmas would get heckled. Only the Scottish National Party could do that.
I wish a happy Christmas even to the Liberal Democrats.
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet.
I listened to what the First Minister said to Kez Dugdale earlier, but I do not think that she has grasped the contradiction. A few months ago, she said that, even though she had been in power for eight years, she was just getting started on education. It was, she said, the “driving and defining priority” of her Government. How on earth does cutting the budgets of Scotland’s education authorities count as a good start?
I set out to Kezia Dugdale that the settlement for local authorities is challenging. That is why John Swinney said yesterday that, before stage 3, we would discuss in a spirit of partnership with local government how we work together to implement our priorities. However, I also put that in context: the net revenue reduction amounts to 2 per cent of local councils’ overall expenditure and does not take account of the additional money that we are investing in educational attainment over and above councils’ core school budgets. Willie Rennie does not take account of what the Deputy First Minister said yesterday about maintaining teacher numbers either.
I remain absolutely determined to prioritise education. That is demonstrated in the budget but, more than that, it is demonstrated in the action this Government is taking through the national improvement framework and the new system of assessment.
Willie Rennie should reflect seriously on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, because things that he has criticised and told us that he is hard and fast against are things that the OECD said earlier this week are putting Scotland on track to become a world leader. It is about time that Willie Rennie changed his position.
That fails the most basic test. The biggest thing that councils do is education, and they have been hammered by the Government in the budget. The First Minister clings on to the attainment fund while she butchers the school budgets of councils.
It is not as if the First Minister had no choices. She decided to match George Osborne on income tax, match him on second homes, match him on business rate poundage and undercut the Tories on the council tax. She had a range of choices. But the result is that she is proposing lower tax and lower spend than even George Osborne thinks is needed.
How can the First Minister say that education is her top priority if she is putting all that before the children of the country?
I am not taking any lectures from Willie Rennie on George Osborne. Willie Rennie and his party propped up George Osborne in the Treasury for five long years.
Willie Rennie perhaps needs to go back to school himself. He has criticised us for what we are doing on second homes and the land and buildings transaction tax. Does he not know that that raises additional money to invest in public services? That is the whole point of doing it.
We have made our choices, as I said earlier—protecting the health service, protecting social care and protecting educational attainment. If Willie Rennie wants to propose that next year in the budget we put up the basic rate of income tax, hitting the poorest hardest, or if he wants to propose that we should put up the council tax, hitting the poorest hardest, he is quite free to go to the electorate and put that forward as a proposal in his manifesto.
I would say that we would see the Liberal Democrats plummet as a result, but they probably do not have much lower to fall.
Prime Minister (Meeting)
To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on her meeting with the Prime Minister this week. (S4F-03143)
I held a constructive meeting with the Prime Minister on Monday. In particular, I made it clear to him that I want to see a deal on the fiscal framework and more powers for the Parliament ahead of our election. We will not, however, accept a deal that is unfair to Scotland. I welcomed the Prime Minister’s agreement that we will both work towards a February deadline for reaching an agreement on the fiscal framework.
We discussed security issues, where the Scottish Government will benefit from increased cooperation with the UK Government. We also discussed the Trade Union Bill, and I can assure the Parliament that I made very clear to the Prime Minister the cross-party and civic opposition across Scotland to that draconian and unnecessary legislation.
Can I ask the First Minister to set out the Scottish Government’s plans for further opposition to the Trade Union Bill? Would the First Minister agree that this highlights the clear problems of leaving employment policy in the hands of ideologically motivated Tory Governments?
Absolutely, and I hope that the irony has not been lost on some of those who are now demanding that the Parliament stop—and I wish that this Parliament could stop—the Trade Union Bill. Those who are now demanding that are the very same people who argued in the referendum that we should keep those powers in the hands of Westminster. The irony surely is not lost.
The Scottish Government submitted a general policy memorandum to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee on Friday, which will enable the committee to hold an inquiry into the impact of the bill and the Parliament to have a vote on it. At the same time, we will continue to make clear our opposition to the bill across the UK and in Scotland. Let me be absolutely clear: in my view, the bill is unnecessary and unwarranted. Despite my discussions with the Prime Minister on Monday, I am still unaware of any logical reasoning behind the bill other than an ideological attack on the trade union movement.
The SNP will oppose the bill across the whole of the UK. I agree with Christina McKelvie that the fact that trade union law is not the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament has left us facing draconian laws that Scotland, if we did have the power, simply would not introduce.
The First Minister has just confirmed that she is against the Trade Union Bill, which is fundamentally a Tory attack on trade unions and workers’ rights. Could she then explain why she allowed the union-bashing indemnification clause that compensates big business, out of the public purse, to remain in the Serco Caledonian sleeper contract?
I am more than happy to write to the member on that specific issue. There may not be many such issues, but I hope that this is one where Labour and the SNP could join together.
We are absolutely clear about the importance of trade unions, not just in reducing the risk of industrial action but in making our workplaces safer, more productive, healthier and happier places to be. I support the trade union movement and I know that the member fully supports the trade union movement; we should join together in trying, even now, to stop this attack on that movement.
NHS 24 (Information and Communication Technology Future Programme)
To ask the First Minister whether it remains the Scottish Government’s position that the NHS 24 ICT future programme is an “exemplar of good practice”. (S4F-03135)
The Scottish Government has not expressed that view or used those words about the NHS 24 future programme. As I stated during First Minister’s question time on 19 November, it is very disappointing—if I can put it that mildly—that a decision to pause the introduction of the NHS 24 future programme had to be taken. However, that decision was taken in the interests of patient safety and therefore it was clearly the right thing to do.
A full review is under way into the issues that led to the decision to pause the roll-out of the new system and we will receive the initial report on that at the end of this month, with a full report in January. We will consider those carefully to ensure that all appropriate lessons are learned.
I thank the first minister for her reply. However, the gateway review, which I presume was from the Government, did say that the programme was an “exemplar of good practice”. Does the First Minister agree that the Government’s management of ICT in the national health service is unfit for purpose?
The Scottish National Party has had two highly critical reports from the Auditor General. It cancelled the e-care programme at a cost of £56 million; it failed to deliver on its promise that the NHS portals would be linked up between NHS boards, so a doctor in Tayside still cannot see patient information from Fife; and now there is the NHS 24 ICT fiasco, with three separate reports—the gateway review, the Ernst & Young report and the PWC report.
The ICT future programme is £40 million over budget, it is over time and it has finally been suspended. Why is it now being delayed for a further eight months at a cost of £0.45 million every month? That is another £3.5 million of taxpayers’ money. It could not be being delayed until June because there is an election, could it?
No, it certainly could not be. It is being delayed for patient safety reasons and I hope that all members across the chamber would accept that.
First, on the point about the “exemplar of good practice” quotation, Richard Simpson may be interested in knowing that although that was quoted in the gateway review that came from the then NHS 24 chief executive, it was the opinion of the independent review team. The Scottish Government centre of expertise in ICT provided advice in establishing the review but was not involved in the conduct of that review. I hope that that explanation helps Richard Simpson.
On the wider issue, it is an important issue and it is absolutely right that the Parliament, both today and in the future, gets the proper opportunity to scrutinise all the issues. However, the decisions that have been taken about the new system have been taken for patient safety reasons and, because of that, they are the right decisions.
We are now focused on making sure that any issues are resolved, that any lessons are learned and that the system can come into full operation as quickly as possible. That is why we are waiting on the initial report, which I think that we will get on 30 December or thereabouts, followed by a full report during the course of next month. At that point, it will be absolutely appropriate for all members to have the chance to look carefully at those reports, scrutinise them and then ask whatever questions they deem appropriate, either of me or of the health secretary.
Commission on Local Tax Reform
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the final report of the commission on local tax reform. (S4F-03136)
We welcome the commission’s report, which is very much in line with the Government’s ambitions on taxation. As the Deputy First Minister said yesterday, we will introduce a detailed plan for reform in the new year that will embody the principles of the commission report. I urge others to do likewise before the election so that the people of Scotland can look at the different options.
All political parties were approached and invited to participate in the work of the commission and I thank those who did participate for doing so. It is disappointing that only now is the Conservative Party showing an interest in the findings when it was the one and only political party in the chamber that refused to participate in the work of the commission in the first place.
I thank the First Minister for her response but, having read the report, I think that we have been vindicated because the report took a great many words to tell us that it did not like the council tax and it thought that the council tax should be replaced but it had absolutely no idea what it would replace the council tax with.
In the spirit of Christmas, can the First Minister guarantee a happy Christmas to aspirational, hard-working families across the country by guaranteeing them that whatever replacement tax she proposes will not hit them hard in their pockets?
I can guarantee the people of Scotland that their council tax will be frozen for the ninth consecutive year. When he responded to the budget yesterday, Murdo Fraser appeared to be disappointed that the Deputy First Minister had decided not to put up income tax or council tax. We are a Government that has protected household incomes and made sure that the obscene increases in council tax under previous Administrations came to an end. Over and above that, we will bring forward our proposals for longer-term reform of the council tax.
I am in no doubt that the Government will put those proposals before the Scottish people in advance of the election. My challenge to every other party in the chamber is to do likewise. The people of Scotland will then be able to choose.
I will allow a short pause for members who are not participating in the members’ business debate and members of the public who are not remaining for it to leave quickly and quietly. I will also allow a few moments for the members of the public who wish to attend the next debate to gain access to the public gallery so that they can hear Mr Wilson’s opening speech. [Interruption.] It appears that no members of the public are waiting to come in, although we were advised that many people would be wishing to attend the debate. We will move swiftly on.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Air Strikes (Syria)