Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03327)
Presiding Officer, as this is the last opportunity that we will have, I would like to offer Parliament a very brief update on our work to secure a future for Scotland’s steel industry.
Negotiations between Liberty House, Tata Steel and the Scottish Government continue, as we speak, in order to secure the basis for an agreement that would see Liberty House buy and operate the Dalzell and Clydebridge steel plants. The final due diligence on that agreement is taking place at present. The agreement would be facilitated by the Scottish Government and would involve the Government buying the plants and then immediately selling them on to Liberty House for the same consideration. Fergus Ewing will attend the Scottish steel task force this afternoon and will provide further details at that point.
In the meantime, I want to thank the workforce, the unions and the companies for their patience and perseverance. We promised that we would leave no stone unturned in our efforts to secure the future of our steel industry, and that is what we continue to do. [Applause.]
That is indeed very encouraging news, First Minister. [Interruption.]
Order.
I record my thanks to all members of the steel task force for their hard work and determination; I particularly thank Drew Smith, James Kelly and John Pentland from my party, and our trade union partners.
During the United Kingdom general election last year, Nicola Sturgeon said that she would reverse George Osborne’s tax cut for the top 1 per cent. In pledging to reintroduce the 50p top rate of tax, the First Minister said:
“It is right that those with the broadest shoulders pay a little bit more.”
Yesterday, she changed her mind. The Scottish National Party will now go into the election with a commitment to keep George Osborne’s tax cut for those who earn more than £150,000 a year, even though we now have the power to make different choices from the Tories. Why does the First Minister no longer think that the richest 1 per cent should pay their fair share?
Raising the top rate of tax to 50p could
“raise zero because of the mechanisms by which people can avoid paying tax”.
Those are not my words—they are the words of Kezia Dugdale.
Let me say this, and say it very seriously, to the people of Scotland. Raising the top rate of tax would be politically easy because there are only 17,000 people in our country who pay it; there would be no political risk attached to doing it. However, to do it in the face of analysis that says that, right now, it could actually reduce the amount of money that we have to invest in our national health service and our public services would not be radical. It would be reckless. It would not be daring. It would be daft. Therefore, we will not do it straight away. Instead, we will continue to consider it in the light of our experience and analysis.
In the meantime, we will put forward fair, reasonable and progressive tax proposals. We will ask the better-off people in our society to shoulder a bit more of the burden. Over the life of the next session of Parliament, our proposals—local and national—will raise an additional £2 billion of revenue, which we can invest in our national health service and our public services and in mitigating the impacts of Tory austerity. That is why I will be proud to ask the people of Scotland to back our plans.
The First Minister really should pay attention, because since I made those remarks, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made it harder for people to move their tax liabilities around the United Kingdom.
We have time and again heard excuses: the richest could avoid paying more taxes; there would be a mass exodus from Scotland. It is just that we normally hear them from the Tory party, not the First Minister. It was not just at the general election that the First Minister claimed to support the richest few paying their fair share; on the day of the Smith agreement to devolve the power over tax, she told Parliament:
“if I was taking that decision now, yes, I would raise the top rate of income tax to 50p.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2014; c 10.]
However, now that she has the power to reverse George Osborne’s tax cut for the very richest and to stop the cuts, she refuses to use it. This is the First Minister who made her name as the anti-austerity champion; she went down to England and said that she would stand up to George Osborne’s tax cuts, but the minute she gets the powers back home, the First Minister chooses not to act.
It is no surprise that the Scottish Trades Union Congress—the representative of Scotland’s workers and trade unions—described the First Minister’s tax plans as “timid” and “difficult to fathom”. I want to ask the First Minister the same question that the STUC posed yesterday: if the SNP cannot summon the courage to propose major progressive change at this moment in time, will it ever?
I will leave Labour—given that it remains in a battle for second place in the election—to indulge in political gestures. I will get on with putting forward the proposals—[Interruption.]
Order.
—that will see this country governed—[Interruption.]
Wheesht!
—fairly and progressively.
HMRC cannot stop people moving house. If just 7 per cent of top taxpayers were to do that, we could lose £30 million a year in Scotland—there would be £30 million less for our national health service and public services. I will get on with doing the right thing, which is why we are asking people—[Interruption.]
Order.
That is why we are asking people in the top 10 per cent of income earners in our country to forgo the George Osborne tax cut, and it is why we are asking those who live in the biggest houses in our country—[Interruption.]
Order.
—to contribute a little bit more, so that over the next session of Parliament we can generate an extra £2 billion to invest in our national health service and our education system, and to mitigate Tory austerity. Those are the sound principles and sound policies that we are putting forward, which is why we know—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
That is why we know that we go into the election with unprecedented trust among the people of Scotland.
And there we have it: a nationalist First Minister arguing that Scotland cannot go it alone on tax. That really takes the biscuit.
Why does this all matter? It matters because after nearly a decade under the SNP, there are 4,000 fewer teachers in our classrooms and 152,000 fewer college students, and the gap between the richest and the rest in our schools is as wide as ever. The new tax powers mean that we can change that. Last week, the teachers’ union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, called on all parties to protect all education spending in real terms over the next five years. Labour can make that commitment because of the tax plans that we have set out, but the SNP’s tax plans will not raise anywhere near enough to do the same. Why will the First Minister not stop the cuts to education?
First of all, let me say this to Kezia Dugdale: we are going it alone on tax. We are rejecting the George Osborne tax cut that John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn are supporting. We are taking the decisions that are right for Scotland. We are also taking—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
We are also taking decisions that will allow us to invest, over the next session of Parliament, three quarters of a billion pounds in tackling attainment in our schools.
I am proud of the record of this Government. We have more people working in our health service, with some of the best and fastest treatment anywhere in the UK. We have rebuilt or refurbished a quarter of all the schools in our country. We have the best school-leaver destinations on record, with young people going into training, education or work more than ever before. This Government has a record to be proud of, but there is much more to do. I am looking forward to persuading the people of our country that I and this Government are the people to get on and do that job.
Nicola Sturgeon will not raise the basic rate of tax, fully reverse the higher rate or increase the top rate, but she wants us to believe that she can find the money to protect education. That is utter nonsense.
The First Minister, who has campaigned for years using the mantra that more powers will mean fewer cuts, now refuses to use the powers to stop the cuts. She says that education is a priority, but she will not ask the richest 1 per cent to pay more to invest in our schools. The SNP says that it is anti-austerity, but it is content to use Parliament as a conveyor belt for Tory cuts. Faced with the choice between using the powers of the Scottish Parliament and passing on Tory austerity, Labour will use the powers. Why is the First Minister’s choice always more cuts? [Interruption.]
Order.
It will be a long time before the people of Scotland forget the grotesque sight of Labour campaigning with the Tories to keep Scotland subject to Tory Governments now and in the future. That is why Labour is paying a price. [Interruption.]
Order.
The tax proposals that we will be proud to put forward in the election will raise an additional £2 billion for our public services and enable us to mitigate Tory austerity.
We have, in the chamber, Tories telling us that we are taxing too much and Labour telling us that we are not taxing ordinary working people enough. I suspect that the people of Scotland will look at what the SNP is offering and say that it is right, proper, sensible and progressive. That is why they will choose us to continue to govern this country.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-03323)
No immediate plans.
The Scottish National Party Government wants to impose a named person on every child in Scotland over the heads of parents, against the wishes of the majority of this country, and against the concerns of many, including the police, who believe that that will take resource away from the most vulnerable families who need it most. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister now claims that the scheme, which is due to start in August, is somehow “not mandatory” or “not compulsory” and that parents can choose
“not to have anything to do with it”.
Will she make it absolutely clear whether parents who do not agree with that scheme are able to prevent their child from having a named person and to withdraw their child from all named person provisions?
As I have said—I will say it again—the named person scheme is an entitlement. I think that it is a good and sensible entitlement. It is not an obligation. It helps children and families to get the support that they need from services when they need it. It does not in any way, shape or form replace or change the role of the parent or carer or undermine families.
The fact of the matter—all of us should seek to remember this fact—is that it is not possible, however hard we might try, to predict in advance which children might become vulnerable. The named person service is intended to ensure or to help to ensure that children do not fall through the net. It is not a state guardian. The legislation builds on the role that teachers and health visitors have long held in relation to children, and the approach is not new—it already operates across much of Scotland. The new legislation makes good practice standard across our country. When it comes to protecting our children, we should be prepared to ensure that the right support services are in place and that they are available if and when they are needed for every child.
That was anything but clear. I remind members that the Scottish Conservatives lodged specific amendments to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill to allow parents to opt out of the named person scheme and that those amendments were voted down by the First Minister’s party and shouted down by her minister, who said that such state guardians were to be a “universal service”. Every child—from birth to when they are 18—will have a named person. [Interruption.]
Order.
That named person will have access to private and sensitive information, all of which will be recorded on a database and will be accessible without the consent—or, in some cases, even the knowledge—of the parents.
Named person legislation is so sweeping and so unpopular that it is no wonder that the First Minister is trying to spin her way out of it. Is it not dishonest to suggest that a parent choosing not to engage with a named person is the same thing as being able to stop their child having one imposed on them in the first place?
The fact of the matter is that children and parents are not legally obliged to use the named person service, or to take up any of the advice or help that is offered to them. However, the service will be available to them if they need it at any point in the future. Families around the country—who may be coping very well, and for whom there are no issues—do not know what the future holds. None of us knows which children may fall into a position in which they are vulnerable or at risk. That is why it is right that the availability of the named person service is on a universal basis.
I repeat that parents are not legally obliged to use the named person service. It is an entitlement rather than an obligation. I think that that is sensible, as it makes sure that the service is available to everybody, if and when they need it, but does not oblige anybody to use it if they feel that they do not need it. That strikes me as a sensible way to ensure the protection of our children and, surely, the protection of our children should be the one thing that unites us all across the chamber.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03322)
The cabinet will not meet again until after the election, in the new parliamentary term. I will take nothing for granted, but I hope that I will chair that next meeting of the Scottish cabinet. It will discuss matters that are of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister’s big idea on tax is the status quo—to do literally nothing. Is she not a little bit disappointed that, after waiting for 80 years to get these powers, she has been so timid with them?
I remind Willie Rennie of a budget that took place in the previous Westminster Government. I seem to remember that a certain party was part of that Government. When George Osborne decided to reduce the top rate of tax, the then leader of that party—the Deputy Prime Minister—said that it was a budget that every liberal could be proud of. Willie Rennie may want to rewrite history, but I suspect that the memory of the people of Scotland will be a lot longer than his.
On the question of my party’s policy, we will put forward—and are putting forward—fair, balanced and progressive tax policies that will raise additional revenue to invest in our public services, and we will do so without clobbering ordinary working people across our country.
The First Minister claims that those tax policies will raise perhaps £1 billion. [Interruption.]
Order.
The Scottish National Party’s official press release yesterday referred to additional revenue of more than £1 billion. However, it also said:
“no taxpayer will see their bill increase”.
If nobody pays any extra, then no Government can spend any more. That means that the opportunity to transform education will be missed; nursery education targets will be missed; the attainment gap in schools will continue to be missed; and the colleges that have been hammered by the SNP will stay on their knees.
Big change needs big, bold measures. That is why the Liberal Democrat penny for education works, and that is why the First Minister’s plan does not deliver. Is the First Minister prepared to say to Scotland’s teachers, parents and pupils, that they are not worth a penny more?
In the course of that question, Willie Rennie displayed breathtaking ignorance of how the fiscal framework—negotiated between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government—works. I suggest that he might want to read the framework before he goes any further.
The truth of the matter is that, over the life of the next Parliament, our proposals for income tax and local taxation will raise an additional £2 billion to invest in our public services—our health service and our education system. Of course, that extra revenue will also enable us to mitigate Tory austerity—austerity that first started while Willie Rennie’s party was propping up a Tory Government.
We move on to question 4. I call Kevin Stewart.
Fairer Scotland
Thank you, Presiding Officer, and aa the very best, quine.
To ask the First Minister what actions the Scottish Government can and will take to create a fairer Scotland, in light of recent United Kingdom Government decisions. (S4F-03326)
Just months after the tax credits fiasco, the United Kingdom chancellor has had to backtrack on his deeply misguided plans to cut benefits to disabled people. That cut would have seen a loss of thousands of pounds a year for 40,000 disabled people across Scotland. The decision to cut benefits was ill thought through, with a lack of any consultation or any evidence for change.
In contrast, the Scottish Government has had extensive consultation with users and organisations about the direction of new devolved powers, including on employability and social security, which will be underpinned by principles of dignity and respect. We have made it clear that boosting economic growth and tackling inequalities go hand in hand, and we will use the new powers to create a better and a fairer Scotland. That is what I hope to be able to continue to do in the next session of Parliament.
The Tories have definitively shown themselves to be the nasty party, with continued attacks on disabled people and our social security system, which was of course designed to provide a safety net to protect our most vulnerable folk. Can the First Minister assure me and disabled people in Scotland that the Scottish Government will continue to offer them the protection that they need and deserve?
When we have a situation where Tory policies are too cruel and a step too far for Iain Duncan Smith, I think we know how far adrift the Tories have gone. It is to the shame of the Scottish Conservative party that it did not speak up against the disability cuts before Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation.
We are firmly committed to promoting and protecting equality and human rights for disabled people. That is why we are implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have invested £50 million in the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 to give disabled people greater control over their lives, and when the Tories cut the independent living fund, we created our own fund and put extra money into it. We are also fully mitigating the bedroom tax to protect 72,000 households, 80 per cent of which have a disabled adult living in them, and as soon as we have the powers, we will make sure that we abolish the pernicious bedroom tax once and for all.
This is a Government that has shown by action and by deed that we will create a Scotland that is fair and inclusive for all our citizens.
Strengthening Local Democracy (Constitutional Convention)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the call from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for a constitutional convention to restore and strengthen local democracy. (S4F-03332)
We welcome COSLA’s 2014 commission on strengthening local democracy and the continuing contribution that it is making to the debate. Passing power to communities is at the heart of our community empowerment agenda. For example, through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, we have given communities much greater control in public decision making and a voice in the decisions that matter to them. We have also supported that increased democracy with our empowering communities fund.
Importantly, we have also enabled Scottish councils to reduce business rates to reflect their local economic development priorities, which will further help to strengthen local democracy.
Presiding Officer, I thank the First Minister for that answer and wish her, you and all members well.
Would a fitting legacy of the debate that we have had in this Parliament about our powers not be to engage with the proposal for a constitutional convention and finally restore local government in Scotland rather than simply local administration?
Yes, I think that that is a fair point. I know that Drew Smith is standing down from Parliament. I praise him for the contribution that he has made and wish him every success for the future.
We have an opportunity in the next session of Parliament, as we take more powers, to decide which powers are best devolved to other parts of Scotland. I am sure that COSLA will be a constructive partner in that discussion and I very much look forward to having it.
Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the modernisation of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919. (S4F-03338)
The Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 was an attempt to address specific concerns 100 years ago. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which the Parliament passed last week, is a further step in this Government’s journey towards a more equal and socially just Scotland for the 21st century. The provisions in the bill, including a new right to buy and the establishment of a Scottish land commission, build on our wider programme of land reform and plans for future action in the next session of Parliament.
Although we will consider all suggestions, we think that our continuing work in the area is the best way to ensure that those who wish to acquire land in Scotland have a range of opportunities to do so.
I certainly recognise the value of the land reform legislation that we passed last week. Most of the Parliament united to support the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, and even those of us who wished at times that it could have gone further agreed that it was the right direction of travel.
In moving the motion on the bill at stage 3, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment said:
“The bill is not the end point of Scotland’s land reform journey”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; c 219.]
We still have hugely concentrated patterns of land ownership in Scotland, and that needs to change. Does the First Minister agree that a modernised land settlement act would be a natural next step in Scotland’s land reform journey? Does she agree that such legislation could unlock the power of our land and enable many more people to access land for productive use, for food, for homes, and for regeneration at a human scale, ensuring that Scotland’s land is put to the use of Scotland’s people—all our people—to serve the common good instead of the private interests of a tiny, entitled few?
If we are re-elected in a few weeks’ time, I will be happy to consider whether a reformed land settlement act fits into our wider plans for further land reform.
I agree with the sentiment of Patrick Harvie’s question. We have made huge strides forward in this parliamentary session, but, as the minister said last week, this is not the end of the journey. There is still work to be done on land reform and I hope that this Parliament, when it is re-elected, whatever its shape, form or balance after the elections in May, will take forward the journey with the same ambition and spirit that was shown in this session of the Parliament.
Will the First Minister ensure that the current review of the Scottish planning system helps and does not hinder the much more diverse pattern of land ownership that will assuredly flow from the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill?
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill have increased opportunities for communities across Scotland to own land. The planning review is being undertaken by an independent panel, which will make recommendations in due course, and we will respond to the panel’s recommendations when we have them. I assure members that land reform and community empowerment will be key drivers in any further planning reform that we undertake.
The Scottish Government will continue to do all that we can to encourage and support responsible and diverse land ownership. We have a target of 1 million acres in community ownership by 2020.
It is appropriate that Rob Gibson’s final question in this Parliament was on land reform, which is an issue that he has championed for decades. Our new Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is, in large part, testament to his campaigning. I thank him for his work and I think that he will be a great loss to this Parliament. [Applause.]
Will the First Minister promote community and co-operative forms of ownership as part of the land reform agenda in the next session of the Scottish Parliament? We have seen many community renewables projects across the country, and, with the opportunities in the new Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, let us see opportunities open up to our urban communities, too, so that there is democratic accountability and so that value and community benefit are shared across our communities through the co-operative model.
I thank Sarah Boyack for her assumption that I will be in this seat when we return after the election. I certainly appreciate her vote of confidence in this Government. I, of course, take nothing for granted. I will be campaigning hard over the next few weeks to earn the right to be back here governing our country. If we persuade the people of Scotland that that is the right way forward, then yes, I will be keen to see us take forward land reform based on the kind of principles that Sarah Boyack has just outlined. I hope that many members, old and new, across the chamber will join us on the next phase of that journey.
The First Minister will be aware of the situation of Lord Apetsi, who is a student at the University of Strathclyde, in my constituency—
I am sorry, Ms White, but this question is on land reform. I know how important your question is—
I have tried three times already to ask the question, Presiding Officer.
I am sorry, Ms White, but members need to follow up the question.
That ends First Minister’s question time.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Motion of Thanks