Official Report 386KB pdf
Party Leaders
14:00
We now move to questions to the First Minister from party leaders. This week, we will begin with Michael Marra, who has up to seven minutes for questions and answers.
Rosebank (Support)
Presiding Officer, as part of your brave new format, you have asked for short, sharp questions and short, sharp answers, so, I was in London this week telling the United Kingdom energy secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I support Rosebank—does the First Minister?
The process of consideration of the Rosebank application has to be applied by the quasi-judicial process that the Prime Minister talked about, where the implications of the consenting of that development have to be compared with the importation of oil and gas—[Interruption.]
Excuse me, First Minister. Members, it is the first question. Let the First Minister answer, please.
Comparison has to be made between the carbon emissions of the Rosebank field and alternative importation of supplies. That is the legal test that has to be satisfied.
That answer was fairly short, but not too sharp.
The First Minister will not back Rosebank investment. He is blocking nuclear jobs and he can barely bring himself to say the word “defence”. Those are all areas where we can get the Scottish economy growing, which will create decent, well-paid employment for Scottish workers.
We need to grow the economy, because the Scottish Government has left the country facing a £5 billion black hole by 2030. That is despite the UK budget yesterday confirming that funding for Scotland will have increased by £18 billion since Labour came to office. Given the cuts that the First Minister is now pursuing and the desperate state of so many of our public services, people are asking, “Where has that investment gone?”
The factual position is that, as a consequence of the UK Government’s budget yesterday, the Scottish Government’s budget will reduce in real terms by 1.3 per cent next year, which is equivalent to a £550 million reduction in revenue funding. That is the reality of running public services while wrestling with a higher-inflation climate. That is the point that Mr Marra ignored in his question. There was nothing in the budget yesterday that provides the uplift for routine public services costs to deal with the increased costs of inflation.
Mr Marra mentioned a couple of topics that he says I do not mention. I mentioned defence in my speech to my party conference, because I think that our country is being left defenceless by the appalling approach to defence taken by the UK Government. He said that I cannot bring myself to mention energy security and renewables. I want Scotland to have the ability to use the resources of renewable energy to reduce the energy bills of people in Scotland, because we have seen, and we have had it confirmed from the chancellor, that Scotland’s energy wealth has been ripped off. I want it to work for the people of Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament information centre and the Fraser of Allander Institute are both absolutely clear that the amount of money that is available for Scottish public services is going up. Why is the First Minister’s reaction always to seek grievance and division on everything?
Yesterday, one of his cabinet secretaries was in such a desperate rush to post the inevitable betrayal video that he could not even pause to spell Scotland properly. We know that Stephen Flynn is not a details man, but come on, let us have a think about things. They all know that the budget for next year is increasing again, but the challenge is the £700 million that the First Minister’s Government has lost by failing to grow the economy.
Can we put away the betrayal myths and work together to deliver growth in this country? Labour is driving forward real devolution to regions to help to improve living standards, but Scotland risks being left on the platform as the train pulls away. The First Minister will get on the train to Glasgow tomorrow to meet the Prime Minister, so can he tell us what powers he will put on the table to be devolved across Scotland to drive growth in our communities?
I look forward to my discussions with the Prime Minister tomorrow and to holding him to the commitment that he gave me in July that any additional powers or responsibilities as part of that programme will be provided with the consent of the Scottish Government and not over our heads or the head of this Parliament. I intend to hold the Prime Minister to that commitment tomorrow.
I have set out an agenda that is about devolving responsibility to local authorities on a regional basis, so that we strengthen local and regional capacity to grow the economy. That has been very clearly set out in the papers that the Scottish Government has produced. The question that none of us knows the answer to is whether Mr Marra is going to give any support whatsoever to strengthening local democracy in Scotland through having stronger regional and community authorities. That is the position of my Government and I look forward to hearing Mr Marra’s answer.
The First Minister would do well by starting to actually explain that to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has made it clear in the past 24 hours that it does not have a clue—not a clue—what the proposals say at all.
Writing in The Times this week, Professor Anton Muscatelli said that, if Scottish growth had kept pace with that in the United Kingdom, Holyrood would have an additional £1 billion to spend each year, and he rightly warned of a devolution gap between Scottish regions and those in England. John Swinney cannot name a single power that he proposes to devolve to Scotland’s regions, so let me help him. He could hand over powers on skills to let local colleges design training to secure well-paid jobs in their communities, devolve powers over transport so that regions can join themselves together in ways that boost growth, and deliver power over economic development to put real power in local hands.
This Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world, yet we are one of its most centralised countries. Will the First Minister work together, or will he let Scotland be left behind?
In formulating that question, Mr Marra must have read the document that the Government published, because that document says that we think that there should be powers at regional level over skills, transport and economic development. I simply offer Mr Marra some generous advice, which is that he pay slightly more regular attention to the contents of Government documents.
I am very happy to co-operate with the Prime Minister on securing more powers for Scotland. I have spent my political life trying to ensure that power is exercised by the people of Scotland because I am certain that, when the people of Scotland decide on their own future and take issues into their own hands, the best outcomes will come about. That is why I believe that Scotland should be independent.
Malcom Offord now has seven minutes for questions and answers.
Pay and Benefits
In a recent edition of “Debate Night”, a nurse told the audience that, even though she was earning a good wage, she was struggling to afford meat for dinner because her daughter’s nursery costs were so high. The advice from her trade union was to get herself downgraded to a lower wage to qualify for welfare. The union told her to get herself down to band 5 so that it would be able to put her on a food bank referral.
Does the First Minister agree that that advice from a trade union might well be in her best interests financially, but that it is a damning criticism of the Scottish tax and benefit system, which perversely incentivises workers to earn less, not more?
Mr Offord’s question rests on a completely fatuous basis. A band 6 nurse at the bottom of that pay scale in Scotland will earn £43,231 and take home £2,258 more after tax than a nurse on the same band in England. That is the reality. Nurses at the bottom of the band 6 scale in Scotland will take home more after tax than nurses on the same band in England, because nurses on that grade in Scotland are paid higher salaries. The basis of Mr Offord’s question is completely and utterly fatuous.
The issue that the nurse is wrestling with is the fact that the energy wealth of Scotland is not being used for the benefit of the people of Scotland but is being siphoned off by others. That has been the case for the past 50 years.
I am afraid that that answer does not help the nurse who is trying to put meat on the table for her daughter. At the end of the day, even if she decides to work longer hours, she will take home less pay. That is the issue of perverse incentives.
Let me give another example. Is the First Minister aware of the ghost army that is made up of 800 employees in the public sector in Scotland who have been declared redundant but are still being paid? Is he aware that 49 of those workers without work who have been declared redundant have continued to be paid for more than five years, and that one NHS Highland employee who has been made redundant has continued to be paid for 17 years—yes, 17 years?
According to The Sunday Times, those ghost jobs cost at least £25 million a year in salary alone. With that level of unjustifiable spending, is it any wonder that the First Minister faces a £5 billion black hole in his budget?
It is very rare for me to say what I am about to say, but I think that Mr Offord should pay a bit more attention to the issue that Craig Hoy raised in Parliament on Tuesday. It is very rare that the Conservative Party is quick out of the traps, but, on this occasion, it was. The issue was dealt with very admirably by the Deputy First Minister in an outstanding set of answers in my absence on Tuesday.
There are so many myths surrounding the material that Mr Offord raised. When people are redeployed to other roles in the public service, they have to work while they are undertaking those other roles. That is the nub of the answer to Mr Offord’s question.
Perhaps the First Minister is looking forward to being redeployed for 17 years.
Let us talk about ghost armies. The First Minister has said that his big-bang reorganisation of Scottish local government is driven by the need to make cost savings. That big bang has been made necessary by his Government’s black hole, which will create another ghost army. It is a big bang that will create hundreds, if not thousands, of redundant employees who will be without work but will still be paid. Where are the cost savings in that?
Surely that demonstrates that the First Minister’s plan for public service reform is a shambles that will deliver neither rewarding and efficient jobs in the public sector nor value for money for the taxpayer.
The public service reform agenda is about improving outcomes for people in Scotland by ensuring that our local authorities have the capacity to deal with the larger strategic issues and—as I explained to Mr Marra, who has not been reading the Government’s papers closely enough—to exercise responsibility for skills, economic development and transport. Perhaps Mr Offord would do well to read those documents, too.
The public service reform agenda is also about motivating and mobilising community engagement through the creation of community authorities in our communities, so that people have more control over what goes on in the communities that they live in, which I think is a very welcome sentiment.
This is about centralisation. How interesting it was to hear in yesterday’s budget speech a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer talking about pushing power and money down to local authorities and local towns and cities in England. In Scotland, the answer appears to be to bring power back closer to Edinburgh and Holyrood.
Returning to my first question, which was about the need for work to always pay more, surely the First Minister now accepts that higher taxes in Scotland provide a disincentive to earn more. Why is it fair that firefighters in Scotland pay an extra £425 a year in tax? How does that incentivise them to work extra shifts? Will the First Minister now pledge to Parliament that he will not raise income tax in Scotland any further in next month’s budget?
The Deputy First Minister will set out the Government’s tax proposals on budget day. I come back to the point that I set out in my first answer, which applies to a number of sectors. I gave the example of a nurse. I could also give the example of a qualified teacher. A qualified teacher at the bottom of the pay band in Scotland, who earns £43,383, will take home £6,607 more after tax than their equivalent in England.
We have tax and pay systems in Scotland that are designed to ensure that people have more control over their resources, and they get a wider offering of cost of living measures in Scotland compared with those in any other part of the United Kingdom. This Government is providing a set of measures whereby we have free early learning and childcare, free prescription charges, free personal care and free university tuition. We are trying to support people with the cost of living, and we are supporting them with higher public sector pay and, as a consequence, more pay after tax than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Climate Action
On Wednesday last week, the United Kingdom Labour Government approved the climate-wrecking Jackdaw gas field. On Thursday, the Secretary of State for Defence, who welcomed that decision, warned us all to have three days’ worth of emergency supplies in our homes to prepare for extreme weather caused by climate breakdown—he did not seem to understand the link between those things. Then, this weekend, Scotland was hit by extreme weather caused by climate breakdown. The Prime Minister has warned of a winter of severe flooding hitting us. However, despite all that, the UK Government seems intent on approving the far larger and far more devastating Rosebank oil field, which the First Minister has indicated he could support if it passed some kind of climate compatibility test. Is the First Minister genuinely suggesting that a monumental oil field could pass a climate test worth the paper that it was written on?
The first thing that I want to say is that the Government is committed to its agenda on climate action and the legally binding targets that we have set. That is why I answered Mr Marra’s question in the way that I did. It is essential that any application that is taken forward for the development of oil and gas resources can be done in a fashion that is compatible with the legal obligations that we carry. The issues that Mr Greer raises must be assessed as part of that process, which must be done comprehensively. We live in a context—all our energy plans accept this—in which, for some time to come, we will still be using oil and gas. The question for us is whether we utilise resources in our own waters or import them from other jurisdictions. That is the purpose of the climate compatibility test. [Interruption.]
That was a noble effort by Mr Middleton, who was clapping loudly by himself.
The First Minister knows fine well that the Rosebank oil field output will be used overwhelmingly for export. He mentions the Scottish Government’s commitment to climate action, but, just this week, the Government approved a new gas-fired power station in Scotland. Not only will that be devastating for our climate; it will push energy bills up by making our electricity supply more reliant on gas, just as gas becomes more expensive.
The next time that the homes and businesses of my constituents in Largs are flooded by extreme weather caused by climate breakdown, who should they send the bill to: the company that is making a fortune from causing climate breakdown through its gas-fired power station or the Scottish Government, which will let the company build it?
The consent that the Government has given on the Peterhead power station is subject to live appeals, so there is a limit to what I can say about it today. However, the reasons and rationale for that decision have been clearly set out by ministers, and it includes a commitment to the development of carbon capture and storage, which is an essential part of the approach to achieving the climate change targets to which the Government is committed.
The issues and circumstances that have been faced by Mr Greer’s constituents in Largs—and your constituents in Largs, Presiding Officer—are of deep concern to me. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport visited Largs on Monday, and the Government’s resilience operation has been in place. I have made no secret of the fact—it is one of the pillars of my Government’s programme—that we are taking action on the climate, recognising the severity of the conditions that members of the public increasingly face.
It is impossible to reconcile the First Minister’s rhetorical commitment to climate action with the Government leaning towards supporting a monumental oil field and having just approved a new gas-fired power station. It is not credible.
However, if the First Minister wants to take action to tackle the climate emergency, an opportunity to do so is coming up. His Government has already agreed to Scottish Green Party proposals for a tax on the 12,000 private jet flights in Scotland every year. He will have to set out the rate of that tax soon. Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, which is a coalition of charities and non-governmental organisations, has suggested that the rate of the private jet tax should be at least 10 times as much as the top rate of regular air passenger duty. Does the First Minister agree with that proposal?
As I indicated in one of my answers to Mr Offord, the Deputy First Minister will set out our position on tax issues in the appropriate fashion during the budget.
However, I say to Mr Greer that the Government’s climate change plans have been set out to Parliament and scrutinised by Parliament. They include and involve a range of different measures that are to be taken to secure that journey to net zero. One of them is the utilisation of carbon capture and storage, and I am very concerned by the uncertainty that has been added into the plans on climate change by the changes in funding arrangements that the United Kingdom Government announced yesterday. What the Acorn carbon capture project requires just now is certainty of direction, certainty of time and certainty on funding. The UK Government has added significant confusion to all those elements and has undermined the certainty that was in place, and I deeply regret that.
Not only is carbon capture and storage a mythical technology, but it will do nothing about the fact that energy bills will increase as a result of an increased dependence on gas. The First Minister has sidestepped that point completely.
On the point about constructive proposals, the Greens are happy to continue making those. This weekend, I set out our plans for a frequent flyer levy to make sure that wealthy bankers who fly between Edinburgh and London every week pay more than families who take one holiday flight every year. The Scottish Trades Union Congress estimates that that would raise about £50 million a year, which is enough money to deliver a railcard for the one age group in Scotland that is not currently eligible for discounted rail fares: 31 to 49-year-olds. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland should adopt a frequent flyer levy and make those regular flyers pay to reduce train travel for more Scots here at home?
As I indicated in my previous answer, the Deputy First Minister will engage in dialogue with other parties about the budget proposals and all issues in relation to tax, and will set those out to Parliament in due course.
This Government abolished peak rail fares, which has helped commuters the length and breadth of the country. That is just one of the transport measures that we have introduced, which also include the £2 bus fare cap. That was introduced first in the Highlands and then in the west of Scotland, and I announced recently that it will be extended to Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland. We have concessionary travel for young people aged under 22 and for older people. Those are all achievements of the SNP Government of which I am very proud.
I call Russell Findlay. You have five minutes for questions and answers.
Rosebank Oil and Gas Field
Should Rosebank get the green light—yes or no?
I answered that question to Michael Marra.
Oh, no he did not. We all know that that is a decision for the United Kingdom Labour Government to make, but its budget said nothing about it, so I am asking John Swinney whether he thinks that it should go ahead. Yes or no?
I answered that question to Michael Marra.
He did not. John Swinney spouts his opinion on everything else that is not in his remit, so I will ask for a third time. Rosebank—yes or no?
For the third time, I answered that question to Michael Marra.
I am getting a headache. This is absolute torture. He has opinions on Gaza—[Interruption.]
Let us listen to Mr Findlay.
Jack up the back agrees with me.
The First Minister has opinions on Gaza, Israel, Russia, Iran and Europe, but not on the North Sea. I will try again. I say to Mr Swinney that it is a yes or no question. Does he support Rosebank—yes or no?
In the interests of explaining to Mr Findlay what I said to Mr Marra, I note that there is a legal responsibility for every application to be considered. The carbon emissions that come out of the development of an individual site have to be assessed to determine whether they are compatible—
Phone a friend. Ask Jack.
Excuse me, Mr Kerr. Your party leader has asked a question and Mr Swinney is trying to answer it. Please allow him to do so.
Any development has to be assessed as to whether it is compatible with our journey to net zero. That is the legal obligation and it is the test that the United Kingdom Government has to go through.
As I also explained in an answer to Mr Greer, we will have a requirement for oil and gas for some years to come. The question that the UK Government has to determine is whether the import of oil and gas resources will have greater carbon implications than the extraction of resources in our own waters. That test was applied on the Jackdaw development, and it has to be applied on the Rosebank development.
I know that this is all performative and funny for Mr Findlay—[Interruption.]
Settle down.
However, some of us take our responsibilities in this place seriously, unlike Mr Findlay.
I did not hear a yes or a no—that is all I asked of him.
A thousand Scottish jobs are being lost every month in the North Sea. For the sake of those workers, why can Swinney not just get off the fence and show a bit of backbone? Does he support Rosebank—yes or no?
If we are going to talk about the economic implications for the North Sea, I am very happy to do that. Russell Findlay’s party presided over a haemorrhaging of employment in the North Sea; with the implementation of the energy profits levy, and the increase in it, the Tories culled jobs in the North Sea left, right and centre. We will take no lessons from the Tories about jobs in the north-east of Scotland.
You have a final question, Mr Findlay.
I think we can give up on the yes or no. The First Minister is not going to answer—that is as clear as day, and people across Scotland will see that for exactly what it is.
He talks about energy wealth. He would reject North Sea oil, kill off the jobs in the North Sea, risk energy security and rely on dirty foreign imports. We all know why: it is because he is terrified of the Green Party and, indeed, of Nicola Sturgeon. Is that not the truth, Mr Swinney?
Despite the fact that Mr Findlay has had the opportunity to ask more questions, those have not got any better as a consequence of this change in arrangements.
I want Scotland to have a clean energy future. I want Scotland to be able to benefit from the energy wealth of our country. We know that the countries that have strength in their domestic production of energy are the countries that are more successful in weathering the energy storm that we are facing.
We know that energy revenues in Scottish waters are expected to be more than £2 billion higher than forecast next year. The people of Scotland should not be facing soaring energy bills, and the Scottish Government should not be facing a £650 million budget cut. We would not have to face that if Scotland was a country that was able to decide its own future, with independence.
Alex Cole-Hamilton, you have five minutes for questions and answers.
Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this refreshing change to FMQs.
Yesterday, the Scottish Liberal Democrats united the Opposition and defeated the Government on the principle of a learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill. When will the First Minister act on the will of Parliament and introduce that vital legislation?
The Government set out yesterday that it had decided to prioritise taking action to address the needs of neurodivergent individuals in our society by improving the services that are available to them, rather than proceeding with legislation. We never closed our minds to the concept of legislation, but we decided to put our energies into and prioritise improving services in the here and now.
I understand yesterday’s decision of Parliament. The Government will consider the conclusions of Parliament yesterday and advise it accordingly of our legislative plans.
I think that everybody watching this meeting would expect and hope that a Scottish Government such as John Swinney’s would be able to do more than one thing at once—and my goodness, we need that bill.
Five years ago, John Swinney and his ministers stood in exactly the same place in the chamber and recognised that the need for legislation was acute. In fact, John Swinney got nearly 900 people and organisations involved, some of whom he asked to relive some of the most traumatising experiences of their lives; he marched them up to the top of the hill and left them there for five years only to march them down again unceremoniously last September. What does he have to say to them? Will he apologise to them now?
What I would say to those individuals who powerfully contributed to the consultation exercise and the legislation is that all the information that they shared with us and the lived experience that was set out then has influenced the plans that we have taken forward to deliver immediate action. The remaining feedback and points that individuals raised will be very much part of how the Government takes forward its policy agenda in this area.
As I said to Mr Cole-Hamilton in my first answer, the Government has never closed its mind to the idea of legislation. What we decided to do in the short term was to prioritise improvements in services to improve the lives of neurodivergent individuals in our society.
The short term was five years ago, though. We knew then what needed to change, and John Swinney’s Government did absolutely nothing. The need for the bill is absolutely clear: we need it to give vulnerable people with neurodiversity, autism and learning disabilities control over the decisions that are taken about their lives; we need to ensure that every professional that they encounter is trained in understanding how to work with their complex needs; and we need to break down the walls that exist between Government departments and public bodies in delivering services. Those things are not happening—they need legislation. Can the First Minister not see that?
As I have indicated to Mr Cole-Hamilton, the Government is taking forward a series of actions to address the issues that he has raised with me. That is the point of getting on with the work that we know must be undertaken. If legislative obstacles are impeding improvements in those services, the Government will consider those issues. We came to the judgment that we could make more of an impact on those issues if we invested the additional resources that we have announced that we will invest and took the steps that we are taking to improve services. That is the approach that the Government will take. However, we will consider the outcome of yesterday’s vote in Parliament.
The investment of resources—the £7.5 million that was put into neurodiversity—would not have happened without the Scottish Liberal Democrats. We need the bill because people with learning difficulties, autism and neurodiversity are dying 20 years before their time in some cases. If that is not a good reason for the Parliament to act with urgency to legislate, I do not know what is.
Maree Todd, as minister, said that the bill would be, in her words, “world-leading”, yet England has an autism act and Wales has an autism code. Is it not the case that John Swinney’s Government is not only not prepared to lead but not prepared to follow?
No, that is not the case. We have committed to several steps that will improve services, including adopting the four-level national pathway for neurodevelopmental conditions proposed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Last year, we opened the £2.5 million multiyear autistic adult support fund, and we have set out in response to the points that have been made in the McManus review the steps that are required to ensure greater consistency in how support for children and young people is identified, planned and delivered. We are acting on those recommendations.
The Government is taking all those steps to ensure that we have practical improvements in the experience of neurodivergent individuals in our society. That is the approach that we are taking. We will, of course, consider the implications of yesterday’s vote, which is what I will always do when Parliament votes accordingly. It is important that we concentrate on delivering the support that is necessary to assist individuals in our country.
That concludes questions to the First Minister from party leaders.