Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02674)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Official figures published yesterday confirmed that the Scottish National Party Government’s most recent oil revenue estimates for next year are more than 10 times greater than those of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Will the First Minister commit to publishing a revised oil and gas bulletin?
Yes. As John Swinney said a few moments ago in general questions, we will take the time to analyse the fiscal changes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the budget yesterday. When we have done that we will publish an updated oil and gas bulletin, as soon as is feasible.
It is worth pointing out that, when the Scottish Government was projecting an oil price of $110 a barrel, the OBR was projecting an oil price of $100 a barrel and the United Kingdom Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change was projecting an oil price of upwards of $120 a barrel, so it is fair to say that everybody’s projections about oil were wrong. [Interruption.]
Order.
The most revealing thing about Labour is how it gleefully pounces on anything that it can describe as bad news and how it steadfastly ignores anything that is good news about Scotland’s economic prospects. The fact is that the projected decline in oil revenues over the next few years is dwarfed in every one of those years by the projected growth in our onshore non-oil revenues. In other words, our country’s revenues are increasing and our public finances are improving. I know that that does not suit Labour’s narrative, but it happens to be a fact.
I am pleased that the First Minister has finally run out of excuses and will publish a new oil and gas bulletin. It is not some dry statistical exercise; it is about the SNP’s key general election demand for full fiscal autonomy within the UK: a plan that would scrap the stability of higher public spending through the Barnett formula and replace it with the austerity max of relying on oil revenues, which are projected in the SNP’s current oil and gas bulletin.
The new OBR figures show something quite extraordinary. They show that, even in the SNP’s most pessimistic scenario, oil and gas revenues are £10 billion more than they are in the OBR’s latest forecast. In the SNP’s preferred scenario, the difference is almost £30 billion—nearly the whole Scottish Government budget.
When the SNP Government published its March 2013 oil and gas bulletin, it did so just five days after the publication of the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures for that year, so it should not take too long this time. Will the First Minister confirm that the new oil and gas projections will be published before we meet again here next week?
I have just confirmed, as John Swinney confirmed, that we will publish the updated oil and gas bulletin as soon as possible.
When? When?
Order, Mr Kelly.
Kezia Dugdale takes great glee in declining oil revenues. If we look to the year 2019-20, yes we will see that oil revenues are projected to decrease by £3 billion compared with the revenues in 2013-14, but in that same year our onshore non-oil revenues will increase by £15 billion. Our revenues are growing and our public finances are improving; that does not suit Labour but it is good news for Scotland.
On the wider question, here we have, yet again, the two faces of Labour. In England today, Labour is telling people that Westminster cuts are extreme and will take us back to 1930s levels of public spending. In Scotland, Labour is trying to tell people that Westminster is the saviour of our public spending. Is it any wonder that nobody believes a word that Labour says anymore?
The only cuts on the horizon are cuts proposed by the Tories and voted for by Labour. The only alternative to austerity in Scotland is the SNP.
The First Minister talks about two faces, but this week she was in England, telling people to vote Green, a party that wants to shut down the oil and gas industry. I also point out that I take no glee in these figures, because we are talking about thousands of jobs. I find that comment utterly disrespectful.
The SNP’s plans for full fiscal autonomy rest on an oil price of $110 a barrel, but the OBR has revised down its oil price figures and now projects an oil price next year of more than $40 a barrel lower than the SNP’s figures. That makes the case for having a Scottish office for budget responsibility even stronger than it was. To be frank, I think that the Scottish Government’s figures simply cannot be trusted. Will the First Minister support Scottish Labour’s call for an impartial and independent Scottish financial watchdog?
As Labour knows, we already have one, and this Government is taking steps to put it on a statutory footing. I would have thought that Labour would have welcomed that, but yet again Kezia Dugdale steadfastly refuses—[Interruption.]
Order, James Kelly.
—to acknowledge the estimated growth in our onshore revenues, and that is before we have the additional economic and fiscal powers that would allow us to grow our economy even faster. That is the whole point of not letting Westminster continue to control our finances and taking more control ourselves.
As for how people in England should vote, is it any wonder that people are disillusioned with Labour? Just this morning, Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, said that there was nothing from George Osborne’s budget yesterday that he would reverse if he became chancellor. There is nothing in the budget of a right-wing Tory chancellor that a new Labour chancellor would choose to reverse. Really? Let me tell you—there is plenty that I would choose to reverse, starting with the austerity cuts that are going to be deeper than anything that we have seen before. I think that Ed Balls has just made our case for us: the only alternative to austerity in Scotland is the SNP.
Last week, the First Minister had to correct the Official Report when she did not tell the truth about how the SNP voted on a key austerity vote in the Commons. I am happy to correct the record, too. Last week, I said that scrapping Barnett would cost Scotland £6.5 billion in spending cuts. I was wrong; the OBR’s oil projections confirm that the cost would, in fact, be £7.6 billion. That is a Barnett bombshell that would mean billions of pounds-worth of cuts—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.
Presiding Officer, SNP members are laughing about cuts to our schools and our national health service. They are laughing about cuts to thousands of jobs in Scotland.
Scots appreciate straight talking; what we cannot stand is when our Government tries to cover up the truth about the impact of its policies. When will the First Minister do the decent thing and admit that the SNP’s plans to scrap Barnett would be devastating for Scotland?
Let me tell Kezia Dugdale what will come as a bombshell to people across Scotland today: it is the news that Labour will not reverse any of the Tory cuts that were announced in the budget yesterday.
It might also have come as a bombshell to people in Scotland to hear yesterday Rachel Reeves, one of the Labour Party’s shadow Cabinet, saying that Labour no longer stands for people out of work. These are the things that will come as bombshells to people across Scotland.
For the purposes of the record, let me confirm that the SNP did not vote for the Labour cuts put forward in the motion just over a week ago. The only cuts on the horizon for Scotland are the £30 billion of cuts that Labour voted for a few weeks ago—cuts that were proposed by the Tories and which we know as of this morning will not be reversed by Labour. The only alternative to Tory-Labour austerity cuts in Scotland is the SNP.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02676)
No plans in the near future.
Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a £1.3 billion tax cut for the North Sea. The plan was widely welcomed across the oil industry. It was welcomed by Sir Ian Wood and by all Scotland’s leading business associations. However, there was at least one voice of dissent. According to that source, what stood out in yesterday’s budget was
“the huge tax breaks for the fossil fuel dinosaurs, which will drag us back from the cusp of a green energy revolution.”
What does the First Minister make of such an analysis?
As the Deputy First Minister said yesterday—I will say it again today—we welcome the moves that the chancellor took in the budget yesterday to support the North Sea oil and gas sector. They are precisely the moves that this Government has for some time been calling for.
However, before Ruth Davidson gets too carried away, she would do well to remember that, on the supplementary charge, all that the chancellor is doing is reversing the tax hike that he imposed on the sector in 2011—in other words, undoing his own damage. However, we welcome those moves and wish that they had been taken a lot sooner.
I asked the First Minister specifically about so-called fossil fuel dinosaurs. I asked because the criticism of the chancellor’s oil industry boost came from the Green Party in England—the very same Green Party in England that Nicola Sturgeon wants people to vote for. In fact, on Monday she said:
“If I was living in England, I’d be probably looking at voting Green.”
About four minutes ago, the First Minister talked about the two faces of Labour. Let us see whether we can get her story straight. When she is in Scotland, she calls on London—as she has just said—to deliver tax breaks to keep the drilling going, but when she is in London, she urges people to vote for a party that says that we should stop the drilling altogether and give hundreds of thousands of North Sea oil workers the sack. What kind of politics is that? What kind of judgment is that? [Interruption.]
Order.
Why is a First Minister of Scotland telling people in England to vote for a party that would kill Scotland’s oil industry?
Dearie, dearie me. Just for the benefit of Ruth Davidson, and anyone else in the chamber, I say that I am Nicola Sturgeon, I live in Scotland, I am voting for the Scottish National Party and I encourage everybody else to vote SNP as well. I hope, for the benefit of everybody in Scotland, that nobody in England votes Tory, because the Tories are imposing austerity cuts in Scotland and the sooner we get rid of them, the better.
United Kingdom Budget (Implications for Scotland)
To ask the First Minister what the implications for Scotland are of the UK budget. (S4F-02673)
Although Scotland has paid more than the rest of the UK in taxes per person in every year for the past 34 years, our annual discretionary spending power has been cut by nearly £2.8 billion in real terms since the start of the spending review period. When we contrast the £30 million of consequentials announced yesterday with that cut, with the £12 billion cumulative cut in day-to-day spending that is expected over the next four years in comparison with 2014-15, and with the disproportionate impact that that will have on those on the lowest incomes, we can begin to fully understand the UK budget’s implications for Scotland.
Can the First Minister tell us in more detail how those cuts—imposed by the Tories and now backed by Labour—will impact on the delivery of public services, public sector employment and the Scottish Government’s ability to invest in infrastructure and support for the most vulnerable in our society? Only last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicated that the cuts could mean the loss of up to 900,000 public sector jobs across the UK over the next four years.
Kenny Gibson is absolutely right to flag up the impact of the cuts, which come on top of the billions of pounds-worth of cuts taken from our budget. It is interesting to note that Labour members were laughing as Kenny Gibson was talking about the impact of the cuts on public services and individuals.
One of the worst things that we see when looking at the analysis of yesterday’s budget is the disproportionate impact of the Tory cuts on the poorest in our society. The combined impact of Tory tax, welfare and public spending changes will reduce the average household’s income by 1.5 per cent, but the changes will reduce the income of the poorest 20 per cent by 2.2 per cent. The disproportionate impact is on the poor. That says all that needs to be said about the Tories’ priorities.
We have heard very different views about the importance of the oil and gas industry going forward, as we did during last week’s debate on the subject. Does the First Minister welcome the plans announced in the budget for the Oil and Gas Authority to fund seismic surveys in marginal fields to sustain production and jobs? Does she agree that public investment in oil and gas is critical to sustaining a key economic sector? Would she welcome further public investment in support of the oil and gas industry in Scotland and across the United Kingdom?
Yes. This Government has repeatedly called for a reduction in the supplementary charge, an investment allowance and support for exploration. For those reasons, I support the measures announced in the budget. I want continued public and Government support for our North Sea oil and gas sector.
The UK Government announced in the budget £1.25 billion of extra spending on mental health services as part of its commitment to parity of esteem between physical and mental health. Will the First Minister commit to spending on mental health services the £125 million of consequential funding that the Scottish Government receives?
Of the £30 million total figure announced yesterday, £26 million comes from changes in health spending and, in England in particular, in mental health spending. I certainly want that money in Scotland to be directed to our health service. The Scottish Government will look carefully at what the priorities should be. Mental health is and always will be a priority for the Government. We will make a more detailed announcement in due course.
Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed to city deals for Aberdeen and Inverness. Will the First Minister commit the Scottish Government to working hand in hand with the UK Government to ensure that the deals are a success and that they bring economic growth to areas that are depressed as a result of low oil prices?
Yes—I give that commitment. I have made it clear that the Scottish Government will work with Aberdeen and Inverness. I want city deals to be progressed elsewhere in due course. Of course, the Government has committed £500 million to the Glasgow city deal, to help make it a success.
Racial Discrimination
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle racial discrimination. (S4F-02671)
There is absolutely no place for racism or, indeed, any discrimination in a civilised society. The Scottish Government is strongly committed to equality, including race equality, which is reflected in our key strategies and in our continued support for organisations that promote race equality, tackle racial discrimination and challenge racism. More than £8 million from the equality budget from 2012 to 2015 has supported activity to promote race equality and to address racial discrimination through a range of projects at local and national levels.
As part of the work to shift attitudes and provide a strong message about the Scotland in which we want to live, we launched last November the latest phase of the one Scotland campaign, entitled “Scotland believes in equality”. That includes a focus on race. In addition, along with our race equality partners and Scotland’s minority ethnic communities, we are working towards producing a race equality framework by spring 2016.
I thank the First Minister for all the work that has been done. I direct her to article 14 of the European convention on human rights, which provides that
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
Given that that is the highest standard of anti-discrimination policy in the European Union, does the First Minister join me in condemning the disgusting and downright discriminatory words of David Coburn MEP directed to the Minister for Europe and International Development, Humza Yousaf, and in reasserting that there is no place in Scotland or Europe for sexist, racist or homophobic discrimination?
I know that I speak on behalf of the entire Parliament when I condemn David Coburn’s utterly reprehensible comments. Yesterday, the Scottish Parliament stood in solidarity with our friend and colleague Humza Yousaf and voted unanimously to censure Mr Coburn. My clear view is that he is not fit to represent the people of Scotland in the European Parliament or anywhere else.
I also take the opportunity to condemn unreservedly the vile homophobic abuse that was directed at Ruth Davidson on Twitter last night and this morning. The individual in question has been identified and, this morning, their membership of the Scottish National Party was suspended pending a full disciplinary process.
Fiscal Autonomy
To ask the First Minister, in the light of the new analysis by Professor Brian Ashcroft regarding fiscal autonomy, whether the two Scottish Government reports entitled “Benefits of Improved Economic Performance” are based on the continuation of the Barnett formula. (S4F-02680)
The modelling does not simulate continuation of the Barnett formula. The Scottish Government analysis illustrates how being able to retain the benefits of improved economic performance in Scotland would allow us to invest in Scotland’s public services and, in turn, to improve further our country’s economic potential.
I respectfully point out to the First Minister that this is not a good week for the Scottish Government when it comes to forecasting oil or analysing the economy. Professor Ashcroft has described the analysis as
“fanciful and … lacking in economic rigour”.
Her Government has been caught red-handed fiddling the figures to try to make her economic policy add up.
In both analytical reports on the economy, which were published within six days of each other, the Scottish National Party assumes continuation of the Barnett formula at the same time as it is demanding full fiscal autonomy. The First Minister knows that we just cannot have both. With the SNP—
Can we get a question, Ms Baillie?
We will see not only Tory austerity but a £7.6 billion deficit, so the SNP will deliver austerity max.
Ms Baillie, I need a question.
Will the First Minister update the analysis to correct her Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy’s mistake so that we can all see the true state of the nation’s finances?
Jackie Baillie thinking that something is the case does not make it the case, as we know from experience.
The Barnett formula was not part of the modelling framework; the modelling framework looks at how, if we were to pursue particular policies and if we benefited and boosted economic performance, we could grow the revenues of Scotland. That should be of interest to all parties.
In response to Kezia Dugdale I said that our onshore revenues over the next few years are estimated to grow; by the time we get to 2019-20, they will be £15 billion higher than they are now. That is without our having the powers to pursue policies that will grow our economy more quickly. Imagine how much better we could do if we did not allow Westminster to control all our finances and, instead, took greater control ourselves.
I say to Jackie Baillie, as I said to Kezia Dugdale, that the only cuts that face Scotland at the moment are those that are proposed by the Tories, which—as we know from what Ed Balls said this morning—Labour will not reverse. That is shameful and the people of Scotland will draw their own conclusions.
Does the First Minister agree that the real threat to Scotland’s economy is the austerity agenda of the Labour Party and the Tory party, whose only disagreement is not on whether to keep cutting our vital public services but on how deep they should go?
Kevin Stewart has put his finger on it. The only argument—the only difference between the glued-together Labour and Tory parties—is about how deep the cuts should be. Therefore, if a voter in Scotland wants a clear and principled alternative to austerity, the only one on offer is the one that is coming from the SNP. [Interruption.] That is the reality. I know that Labour members do not like it, but they will keep hearing it all the way to 7 May.
In the past 20 minutes, the First Minister has praised the effect of a growing private sector on the Scottish economy and, at another point, demanded vast increases in the public sector. Will she explain which economic theory she believes in?
I believe in investing in our public sector to protect the public services that people across Scotland rely on. I also believe—Labour used to agree—that if we use public funding for investment in infrastructure, innovation and skills, we will grow the economy faster. That basic premise is at the heart of my argument. Alex Johnstone is looking confused—perhaps that is why he is a member of a party that has missed its borrowing projections by £150 billion over the current United Kingdom Parliament.
National Health Service Staff (Confidentiality Clauses)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on confidentiality clauses for staff leaving NHS jobs. (S4F-02687)
The Scottish Government has made it clear that we expect there to be a presumption against the use of confidentiality clauses. They should be used only if there are clear and transparent reasons for using them. That is why, last year, national health service boards were instructed to remove confidentiality clauses altogether from standard settlement agreements.
Furthermore, we have increased transparency. Every NHS board is now required to notify the Scottish Government of any settlement agreement to resolve a dispute if it is intended that that agreement will contain a confidentiality clause.
Since February last year, eight health boards have used such restraints. Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board alone has imposed them on 36 departing staff members. NHS gagging orders are less to do with keeping sensitive information private and much more to do with stopping embarrassing information becoming public. They are unfair to the employee who is leaving and they fail the public interest test. Such gagging orders are charters—they are charters for the inept, the incompetent and the bully. Does the First Minister agree that the practice is in serious need of urgent review?
The Scottish Government reviewed the practice and took action, which is why there is now a presumption against the use of confidentiality clauses. They used to be included in standard settlement agreements, but are no longer included.
As the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association have previously recognised, there will be circumstances in which there are reasonable grounds for using such clauses, but we have insisted that when such circumstances exist boards notify the Scottish Government of them. We have taken action that I think is appropriate.
There is another extremely important point to make. Even with a confidentiality clause, it is not possible to gag people who have concerns about patient safety or malpractice within a health board. The fact that any agreement that sought to prevent staff from expressing concerns about patient safety or malpractice would be illegal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 makes such an agreement unenforceable.
I appreciate where Annabel Goldie is coming from, but I think that she should acknowledge the very clear action that the Scottish Government has taken.
Although it was announced last year that there would be no more gagging clauses, the fact that there have been 40 in the past year must be a matter of public concern. In order to be certain that gagging clauses are not being misused to cover up harassment, bullying or any issues that might impinge on patient safety directly or indirectly, and to ensure that the contacts that are made through the whistleblowers helpline—the national confidential alert line, as it is properly known—which our Government set up some two years after such a helpline had been set up in England, are being followed up fully, will the First Minister consider setting up an all-party parliamentary oversight committee to give the public absolute confidence that such clauses are being used only in appropriate circumstances?
Richard Simpson and Annabel Goldie have raised important issues. I want to acknowledge that and respond to them appropriately.
I argue that a mechanism such as Richard Simpson suggests already exists. As I said to Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Government must now be notified of any use that is made of confidentiality clauses to allow those clauses to be better scrutinised. In May this year we will give the first full year of that information to the Public Audit Committee of this Parliament. That cross-party committee will be able to scrutinise the information and make comments or recommendations as it sees fit. I think that that is appropriate.
We have said very clearly, first, that there is a presumption against the use of gagging clauses; secondly, that when such a clause is used because a health board and the member of staff in question think that that is appropriate, we must be notified in order to allow scrutiny; and thirdly, that it would be illegal to use such a clause to gag a member of staff who had legitimate concerns about patient safety. Taking all that into account, Parliament should be assured that appropriate action has been, and is being, taken.