Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01973)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Does the First Minister support the living wage?
Not only do we support the living wage but, of course, we introduced the living wage across the Government-controlled public sector in Scotland.
The First Minister will know that more than 400,000 working people in Scotland earn less than the living wage. Nearly two thirds of them are women. Being paid the living wage could mean an increase of around £2,000 a year to each of them. If the First Minister is committed to making a difference to those people’s lives, why did the Scottish National Party vote down Labour’s plans to guarantee a living wage to every worker from every firm that is bidding for a Government contract?
First, the credentials on the living wage are with the Scottish National Party Government that introduced it, as opposed to a Labour Party that never introduced it when it was in office.
Secondly, on the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, let us get it right: we are pursuing the living wage but, obviously, we are doing so in a way that is compliant with European Union legislation, as was well explained.
If Johann Lamont is going to question our credentials with regard to seeking the living wage for Scottish workers and campaigning for it, perhaps she would like to explain how it never occurred to Governments in which she was a minister to introduce the living wage while they were in office. This Government did it, and we are proud of it.
The First Minister did not answer the question. He was asked about what his Government did last week to improve the rights of ordinary working people.
We know that legal advice and the EU is not the First Minister’s strong point, but we have advice here that clearly states that it can be done. We also have a statement from the European Commission that says that it can be done. Even an old Etonian such as Boris Johnson can ensure that workers in London can get the living wage.
In Scotland, however, we have a First Minister who looks for reasons not to do things. Let us look at his record on low pay. When Labour introduced the minimum wage, Alex Salmond was in his bed. When there was work to be done in his constituency office, he advertised for an unpaid intern, rather than letting someone earn a day’s pay. Further, he spends £10 billion of our money on procurement, yet he denies hard-working people across Scotland the right to a living wage.
Why should working people across Scotland who are battling against the scourge of low pay trust the First Minister when he will not lift a finger to help them now?
The answer to Johann Lamont’s question was in the second sentence of my previous answer. However, if she has that legal advice, stage 3 is still to come in the legislative process—she can bring forward the advice and we can work jointly to introduce the living wage in terms of procurement, if that legal advice is solid. However, she will agree that it would effect no benefit to workers in Scotland if we were to try to do something that was then immediately shot down by the European Commission.
Of course, we are now talking about an argument that asks whether the living wage should be introduced in terms of the minimum wage. Significantly, of course, the last time that Labour was in government, it failed to protect the minimum wage in terms of inflation—something that the SNP Government has guaranteed to do once this Parliament and this country get control of the minimum wage as well as the living wage.
On our credentials on this matter, the protection that has been offered across the Government-controlled public sector and the campaigns that we have had make our credentials impeccable. Why can no member of this chamber explain why it took an SNP Government, in this Parliament in Scotland, to introduce the living wage across the public sector in Scotland? That is, I repeat, something that we did, not something that we talked about doing, and it is something that we are proud of.
First, the legal advice was available at stage 2, and the minister encouraged his back benchers to vote down the proposal. The First Minister promises jam tomorrow—[Interruption.]
Order.
—when independence comes, rather than making a difference now. That is the business of Government: what can be done right now.
The First Minister claims to be a progressive beacon, yet, after seven years in government, he cannot name a single policy that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. He guarantees big business a tax cut that is 3p in the pound lower than anything that a Tory chancellor would contemplate, but he will not match Labour in asking those with the broadest shoulders—people who earn more than £150,000 a year—to pay a bit more in tax. Labour will lodge our amendments on the living wage again at stage 3. Will the First Minister back them, or will he vote for poverty pay?
It is not new legal advice—it is the same old legal advice that Labour previously presented. One objective of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill is to promote the living wage, which is why that aspect of the bill was proposed.
Let me repeat: this Government introduced the living wage across the public sector in Scotland. That might have had something to do with the alleviation of poverty wages. We actually did that, which is something that the Labour Party did not manage to do either here or, for that matter, down at Westminster.
Johann Lamont asks what we are doing to deal with poverty in Scotland and what measures we can introduce. Do we not remember? It is only a few weeks since the Labour Party voted against the extension of free school meals to all primary 1 to 3 schoolchildren in Scotland. Luckily, the SNP now has a majority in the Parliament and was able to bring forward that measure with the support of the Poverty Alliance.
We then go back to the top rate of taxation. I have pointed out to Johann Lamont that it was the SNP who moved against the reduction of the top rate of taxation from 50p to 45p in 2012. Where were the Labour members then? They were not asleep in their beds; they decided to deliberately abstain from the vote as an act of policy.
I am glad that Johann Lamont is now secure in those matters. In a remarkable “Newsnight Scotland” interview on Tuesday night, she twice refused to commit herself to increasing the top rate of taxation. I will quote her exactly. When asked, she said:
“There is a separate argument about how those powers are used. There is a dialogue we need to have with people in Scotland about that.”
I suggest that she have a dialogue with members of her own party so that we can get some decent proposals from the Labour Party instead of its current proposals, which Reform Scotland has pointed out will raise not 40 per cent, as was claimed on Tuesday, but only 26 per cent of the expenditure of the Parliament. Even people who were previously in favour of the Labour Party’s proposals have now pointed out their extraordinary deficiencies.
Why is it that the yes vote is increasing month by month, poll by poll? Because people in Scotland look at the Tory Government at Westminster, remember the Labour Government in Scotland and see that a Government of our own in Scotland will ensure both prosperity and fairness across Scottish society.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01977)
No plans in the near future.
Two years ago, the Scottish Government predicted that oil and gas receipts would be up to £7.2 billion. In reality, they were £6.1 billion. Last year, it predicted that oil receipts would total up to £8.3 billion. So far, with 10 months of those collected, the total is £4.7 billion. In the white paper, even to begin to balance an independent Scotland’s books, the Scottish Government predicts oil revenues of up to £7.9 billion in 2016-17—[Interruption.]
Order. I would like to hear Ms Davidson, if members do not mind.
However, yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the receipts for that same year were more likely to be £3.2 billion, which is less than half that figure. The First Minister wildly overstated the case last year and overstated the case this year. Why should we gamble the future funding of our hospitals and schools on a man with such a track record?
In the proposals in the white paper, we pointed out that with a historic share of debt, the deficit in Scotland would be between 1.6 and 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product in 2016-17. The forecast from the OBR for the United Kingdom deficit was 2.2 per cent—that was the revision downwards in the budget of this year.
Members should remember that the OBR has changed its forecast on growth in the economy by 50 per cent over the past year, which is quite an extraordinary achievement. If we remember the first Conservative Party budget, we should be moving into a happy situation of surplus by next year—according to the Conservatives’ fancy—but that happy state is to be delayed to 2018-19.
The OBR has changed its oil forecasts, up and down, every six months. Therefore, based on certain factors—a reasonable forecast of oil price, as opposed to one that is $20 lower than that of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and an increase in production, which the industry says will be the result of the extraordinary investment that we are seeing in the North Sea—the figures that we have outlined are robust. We are not going to go down the—[Interruption.] Well, we do not need a crystal ball to see the clarity of forecasts from George Osborne or the OBR; the forecasts change every five minutes, upwards and downwards.
It is quite useful sometimes to look at the fine print. Only last night, we discovered that of the £300 million adjustment in oil figures for 2016, no less than £200 million relates to the reallocation of offshore corporation tax to onshore corporation tax—a remarkable thing for a Tory chancellor to forget to announce in the middle of his budget, six months before the referendum.
When we consider a Conservative Party that has been telling us for the past 30 years that North Sea oil is not really worth all that much and is going to run out, and which has taken in, as its share, some £300 billion of Scottish oil revenues over the past 30 to 40 years, I think that, as we consider the next 40 years, the majority of people in Scotland will say that it is time that Scotland had a shot at a share of our great natural resources. Unlike the Conservative Party, which thinks that that is an enormous burden, the vast majority of people in Scotland will see it as one of the great advantages of controlling our resources in an independent Scotland.
The First Minister’s “robust” figures on oil are predicated on the barrel price not dropping below $113. Today, oil is trading at $105 per barrel. It is interesting that the First Minister criticises the OBR, because this time last year, when the referendum was not six months away, the finance secretary said:
“The OBR forecasts set out alongside the UK’s March budget have not been seriously challenged by the industry or by independent commentators”.
What a difference a year makes.
I am willing to concede that none of us knows exactly what the oil price will be in 2016-17. However, the First Minister’s Nobel laureates have told him that he should
“plan budgets on a cautious estimate for oil revenues”.
That is good advice, and it is unfortunate that the First Minister is not following it. Projections that are more than double the most recent projections sound to me like someone being not cautious but downright reckless.
It is more than a year since the First Minister dashed out his dodgy oil figures in the oil and gas analytical bulletin. He promised us regular updates, but so far we have not had any. When will the First Minister update his figures? Does he accept that he will have to revise them down?
Let us talk first about prices, on which Ruth Davidson accused us of being overambitious. I was pointing out that the OBR forecast now, which is a revision upwards on its last forecast, is $99 a barrel in 2016-17. As Ruth Davidson rightly suggests—let me be exact—we forecast $113. The Department of Energy and Climate Change, a UK Government department, forecasts $120 for that year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts up to $140 to the end of the decade, and other forecasts are even higher. Therefore, $113 is not an unreasonable estimate, given that—by her same logic—we are already some $9 ahead of the OBR forecasts for the current year. On prices, there is a reasonable case to be made that ours is not an overambitious forecast but a very sensible one.
The OBR—remarkably—does not take the Department of Energy and Climate Change forecast on production, having refused to take its forecast on prices. The OBR is alone in thinking that the massive investment that is going into the North Sea at present will result in no increase in production. That goes totally against the arguments that the UK Government endorsed in the Wood report.
I offer Ruth Davidson the final authority on these matters: the man who can never be wrong, in her estimation. David Cameron said that North Sea oil
“is a real jewel in the crown of the United Kingdom economy. What is encouraging is that this year we are seeing a growth in production, as a number of new fields and projects come on stream”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 12 June 2013; Vol 564, c 342.]
Even the Prime Minister is forecasting an increase in production that the OBR says is not going to happen. In that light, and given the evidence of the past 40 years, I think that people are more likely to believe Scottish Government forecasts and estimates of Scottish natural resources than a Tory party that has pocketed £300 billion of Scottish resources over the past 40 years. If we allow it the opportunity, it will happily pocket another £300 billion over the next 40 years.
Free Prescriptions
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will continue to provide free prescriptions. (S4F-01984)
Yes.
I thank the First Minister for his assurance that free prescriptions will be protected by this Scottish National Party Government. Last week, the prescription charges coalition in England, which brings together more than 20 charities that support people who have long-term conditions, produced its latest report. It said that more than one third of the people who were questioned reported that
“the cost of their medication had prevented them from taking it as prescribed”.
In light of that, does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Conservative Party’s proposal to abolish free prescriptions is socially divisive and represents an utterly obscene tax on ill-health that is bound to hit hardest the most vulnerable in our society and undermine progress made in Scotland—
I think we have got the question. First Minister.
People will find it significant that Ruth Davidson did not want to ask a question about the highlight announcement of the Tory party conference, which was on introducing a sick tax on people in Scotland.
The member is quite right. David Barker of Crohn’s and Colitis UK, who leads the prescription charges coalition, said:
“People with long-term conditions in Scotland do not face the barrier to effective treatment that those in England still do. As a result of an unfair, outdated and arbitrary system of exemptions, research shows that many with long-term conditions in England are severely compromising their health through being unable to afford prescription charges.”
I say to the Conservative Party that if it emphasises its credentials by cutting this tax, that tax and the next tax while simultaneously making the highlight of its conference an announcement that it will put a tax on ill-health on the Scottish people and take us back to the unfair situation in England that David Barker rightly speaks of, that is not an argument that will increase its support. That policy will diminish attendance at the party’s annual conference—if, indeed, that is possible.
In a year when we had a record attendance, that is something—[Interruption.]
Order.
Neither the question nor the First Minister’s response was a surprise. How can he justify continuing to put hard-pressed resources into a ham-fisted, universal, non-targeted tax cut that has undoubtedly benefited the astonishing number of £100,000-salary rich ministers sitting on the front bench, rather than follow our priority of putting the resource into the recruitment of 1,000 additional nurses who could make a huge contribution to our national health service?
There has been a rise in the number of qualified nurses and midwives since we took office in Scotland, and rightly so. Now we see that, when it comes to trying to promulgate difficult policies, there is a delegation of power to the deputy. I can see why that would be the case.
Jackson Carlaw should remember that if he goes to the barricades on this one he might meet with a dusty answer. The cut-off point was £16,000 back in 2008-09 when the analysis was done and 600,000 people in Scotland faced prescription charges. That was the extent of the unfairness that was going on and which would be revisited on Scotland if the Conservative Party had its way. I hope that no other party in this chamber is going to go down the road of reimposing the tax on the sick.
As for the record attendance at the Tory conference, I look to the Sunday Post for information on that. I have here an article stating:
“The Sunday Post can also reveal that desperate Tory bosses sent out invitations to non-party members ... in a bid to fill the empty seats at its conference.”
If the photo I am holding is anything to go by, it did not work—
First Minister, that is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with prescription charges.
United Kingdom Budget
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the 2014 United Kingdom budget. (S4F-01979)
The Scottish Government will be making a statement before the Easter recess on the budget consequentials and the impacts of the budget in Scottish society. The budget was the last Westminster chance to create opportunity in Scotland and depart from the austerity programme, but that chance seems to have been missed. Before the Easter recess, our finance secretary’s analysis will examine completely the likely impact of that continued austerity programme in Scotland.
In the face of many who are struggling as a result of their policies, the Conservatives have callously claimed that this budget is good for hardworking people, because of a cut to the cost of beer and bingo. Will the First Minister set out what the real cost of Westminster’s austerity agenda is to families in Scotland—particularly families on lower incomes?
We can find that in the UK Government’s own distributional analysis report, “Impact on households”, which accompanies the budget. That analysis shows that this particular Westminster game of bingo is the only game of bingo where everyone is a loser, because the average loss for families is £757 a year. It is true that the top quartile lose £2,000 but, according to the UK Government’s own figures, the second-biggest loss is for families at the very bottom of income distribution, who lose £814.
That condescending poster tweeted by Graham Shapps—
Members: It’s Grant.
—the Conservative Party chairman told us that cutting the bingo and beer duty was
“to help hardworking people do more of the things they enjoy.”
Perhaps a lot of folk in Scotland will look at that and say, “88 is a millionaire’s tax break; 25 is the NHS privatised; and all the 3s are tuition fees”, which is why the Conservative Party will continue to be rejected by the people of Scotland.
In the spirit of trying to find something positive to say about what was a bad budget for the vast majority of families across the United Kingdom—I agree with the First Minister about that—I note that support for employers was extended to create up to 100,000 new apprenticeship-related jobs over two years. That scheme does not exist in Scotland, but the consequentials of around £16 million will. Will the First Minister apply those resources to extending the apprenticeship programme and increasing opportunity for our young people?
As Iain Gray should know, the consequentials are extremely limited over the next two years, but the finance secretary will set out how exactly we intend to allocate them before the Easter recess.
I gently remind Iain Gray that this Government has increased apprentices in Scotland by 60 per cent over the levels that we inherited. An absolutely crucial point about our apprenticeship programme in Scotland is that all the people in apprenticeships are employed, which is absolutely necessary to achieve the joint interest of the apprentice and their employer in their future success.
Obviously, we always look at ways to improve the lot of young people in Scotland. Yesterday’s debate on the European youth guarantee was part of that process. Let us remember the success that we have already had in the apprenticeship scheme. Given the financial circumstances of the past few years, a 60 per cent increase in apprentices from 16,000 to more than 25,000 is no mean achievement.
A few minutes ago, the First Minister accused the Conservative leader of passing the buck to the deputy leader. I do not think that he is in a terribly strong position to say that.
On yesterday’s budget—
I was hoping that you would get to that, Mr Brown.
Which of the savings and pensions measures from yesterday’s budget does the First Minister not support?
We welcomed a number of the measures on savings, while pointing out that although there are benefits for people in extending to £15,000 the amount that can be saved tax free in an individual savings account, the Conservative Party would do well to remember that the average wage in Scotland is some £17,000 and that therefore, for many families in Scotland, the right to save £15,000 in a tax-free ISA is somewhat theoretical.
If ever the Conservative Party starts to show some affinity with the reality of what families in Scotland are suffering and enduring—not like the Tory party chairman did—then and only then, which I think will extend well beyond the member’s political career and mine, will the Conservative Party be able to restore its fortunes. Is it not possible for the member to understand that people look at the Conservative Party and see a party of vested interests as opposed to one of the people’s interests?
Human Trafficking
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle human trafficking. (S4F-01968)
We are working to ensure that police and prosecutors have the powers that they need to make Scotland a hostile place for traffickers, to raise awareness among the public and organisations about the potential signs of trafficking, and to ensure that tailored support packages are available for the victims of that heinous crime.
We are grateful to Jenny Marra for her interest in this agenda. The responses to the consultation on her possible members’ bill confirm strong support for Scottish human trafficking legislation. As Ms Marra knows, on Monday 17 March we confirmed that the Scottish Government will introduce a human trafficking bill in this parliamentary session to strengthen further that response.
I thank the First Minister for taking on the bill and for using his majority to put important legislation on the statute book in Scotland.
The most important part of the bill will be the legal right of victims to get the support that they need. One trafficking victim is identified in Scotland every four days, but we believe that to be the tip of the iceberg. Will the First Minister commit today to enacting a survivors service and survivors standards, as approved by 51,000 members of the public, to ensure that victims of this human rights abuse in our communities get the legal right of support for recovery that they desperately need?
We will look sympathetically at the proposals. The aim and objective will be to consolidate and strengthen the existing criminal law. Enhancement of the status of and support for the victims of trafficking will require the relevant agencies to work with the Scottish Government to develop and implement the anti-trafficking strategy.
I am sure that, as we develop that dialogue, we will produce legislation that I hope everyone in this chamber believes will improve the lot of the victims, and be of great credit to this Parliament and to Scotland.
Independence (Welfare System)
To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the cost of an independent Scotland’s welfare system and whether it would seek the co-operation of the United Kingdom Government in its implementation. (S4F-01981)
As Alex Johnstone will know, the expenditure on social protection as a share of gross domestic product is estimated to have been lower in Scotland than in the UK in each of the past five years, accounting for 15.5 per cent of GDP in Scotland and 16 per cent in the UK in 2012-13.
Alex Johnstone will also know that the transitional period of shared administration was recommended by the expert working group on welfare. We agree with that view.
I am aware of the First Minister’s figures, which he has given in previous answers. However, it is clear that moneys in the Scottish budget as a whole are already allocated to other priorities and that, with a theoretical deficit of £12.1 billion built into the figures for the last full year, any additional money that is promised to the welfare system—as it is regularly promised by the First Minister’s back benchers—will have to be accounted for somewhere. Can he tell us whether it would be through cuts in other areas of expenditure, increases in taxation or additional borrowing that he would account for the £12.1 billion deficit that he would have to address?
Alex Johnstone will see, if he examines the white paper, that—as I pointed out to Ruth Davidson—the projections for 2016-17 show Scotland being in a stronger fiscal position than the rest of the UK during that period.
In terms of the white paper, I will point out some details. We have pointed out that
“Scotland delivers almost all parts of the current UK benefits system to people living in Scotland from locations within Scotland”.
That is at paragraph 4.50. Also,
“Scotland provides a wide range of services to England ... such as working age benefit processing for London and services for pensioners in England, and involve a claimant count measured in millions rather than thousands.”
I make that point because Alex Johnstone talks about deficits in Scotland, but seems to be totally oblivious to the fact that the deficit of the United Kingdom—George Osborne’s deficit—is more than £100 billion.
Some appreciation of the plank of wood in his chancellor’s eye would perhaps help Alex Johnstone before he looks for specks of sawdust in the Scottish Government’s eye.
Does the First Minister agree that the best way to deliver a fairer society is not just to tinker at the edges of devolution but to enable this place to have control over the whole social security system, the tax system and the statutory minimum wage?
In fairness, I will point out to Alex Johnstone before I answer the question that my previous answer was for the benefit of Willie Rennie, who asked me last week to quote the Bible more often, but it turns out that he is not in the chamber.
I agree with John Mason that only the full fiscal powers of independence will allow key decisions on tax, wealth and employment policy to be made in Scotland by those who have Scotland’s best interests at heart.
The figures that I read out earlier with regard to the impact on families of all the tax and benefits measures came from the UK Government’s own papers that were published yesterday. I cannot understand, given the extent and depth of the recession and the suffering that has been endured by people in all categories of income, why on earth the second biggest impact of all should, in a situation in which all families are less well off on average, fall on those who are least able to pay and to bear that burden.
That is why I think that a Scottish Government of any political complexion would better reflect the general interest of the Scottish people, and why we must—we absolutely must—have tax and benefits under the control of this Parliament.
Previous
General Question Time