Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I ask Bruce Crawford to move motion S3M-938, on the approval of a Scottish statutory instrument.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2007 Amendment Order 2007 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
Tavish Scott wishes to speak against the motion. Mr Scott, you have up to three minutes.
The Liberal Democrats seek clarification from the Government following the Finance Committee's consideration of the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2007 Amendment Order 2007.
The budget revision order provides that £100 million of additional capital for colleges and universities must be committed in the 2007-08 financial year. That was first announced by Fiona Hyslop on 26 October and it was confirmed on 9 November in a Government circular to colleges, which stated that the allocation was for 2007-08. Last Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth told the Finance Committee that the money was for this year.
However, after question time last Thursday, the Scottish National Party Government's special advisers distributed a table to journalists that showed that £100 million was to be delayed until 2011 and that not a single penny would be allocated for this financial year. That table, which was issued by civil servants who work for the First Minister, casts serious doubt on the budget revision on which the Parliament is asked to vote tonight.
Parliament needs some straight answers. What is the status of the document that the special advisers issued? Will any additional capital spending in colleges and universities take place this financial year, or will it be delayed until the following three years? Can the cabinet secretary tell Parliament why Government special advisers showed journalists figures in which the allocation was delayed until 2011 whereas the Finance Committee was given different information?
Inside a week, the Government has given two different stories on the additional money for higher education. Will the cabinet secretary tell Parliament which document is correct—the budget revision order or the table that was issued to journalists? It cannot be both.
I call on the cabinet secretary to respond. Mr Swinney, you also have up to three minutes.
I make it clear to Tavish Scott and his colleagues that what I told the Finance Committee, which has been reiterated by my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, is absolutely correct. The money will go to institutions in this financial year.
Quite clearly, putting in such a generous accelerated financial commitment to universities and colleges at this stage will have the consequence of freeing up money for capital budgets in all the years of the spending review that would otherwise need to be invested at that time. The Government's wise, early and imaginative decision to use the resources at our disposal to ensure that we accelerate the capital investment in our further and higher education institutions is to be broadly welcomed.
Mr Scott should rest assured that the Government will ensure that the resource is put in place as we have promised in the financial settlement for this financial year. To ensure that the Liberal Democrats properly understand the financial impact of the Government's proposals, we have made clear how, if the allocation was smoothed over the three years, it would have rebutted all the rubbish that we have heard from this lot—the Opposition parties—over the past few weeks.
If we followed Mr Scott by voting against the autumn budget revision, we would be turning our backs on £641 million of additional resources for teachers' and national health service pension liabilities. If we followed the Liberal Democrats tonight, we would be turning our backs on nearly £50 million of investment in enterprise and renewable energy projects. If we did not approve the draft order tonight, there would be no money for abolishing the bridge tolls on the Forth and the Tay, which the Liberal Democrats apparently support. There would be no accelerated investment in housing initiatives—£36 million for affordable housing, £10 million for modernising private sector housing and £14 million for central heating and the warm deal.
The Liberal Democrats must understand that we will remind the public the length and breadth of Scotland that they want to stop expenditure on the warm deal, universities and renewable energy. The Liberal Democrats must think carefully before they come to the Parliament to nit-pick, as they have been doing repeatedly for months.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S3M-939, on approval of an SSI.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 (Incidental, Supplemental and Consequential Provisions) Order 2007 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S3M-937, on a committee remit and duration.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees to amend the remit and duration of the Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme Committee as follows:
Remit: To inquire into and report with recommendations for a Committee Bill on a replacement for the Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme rules and the Grants to Members and Officeholders Order;
Duration: Until the Parliament has completed its consideration of the committee's report and any ensuing Bill.—[Bruce Crawford.]
The questions on the motions will be put at decision time.