Chamber and committees

The UK Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee described our rural visa pilot proposal as

“sensible and clear in both scale and deliverability”,

and it highlighted that it is in the UK Government’s interest to trial it. Despite that, and despite the harm that has been caused to our rural and island communities by a hard Brexit, the current United Kingdom Government refused to engage.

The business sector recognises those harms. It is therefore welcome that FSB Scotland is calling for a rural visa pilot, which recognises that businesses need to attract people to Scotland to contribute to our economy and communities. Our offer to the next United Kingdom Government is simple—work with us and with stakeholders across Scotland, which are calling in the strongest terms possible for that pilot to be delivered.

I also do not think that Douglas Ross is on strong ground in attacking me about the rational and considered position that the Scottish Government is taking, when the Prime Minister is ignoring the climate emergency by sanctioning 100 oil and gas licences without any questions being asked. That is irresponsible. That is action that will accelerate the climate emergency.

This Government will take a rational and considered approach to oil and gas developments. We will also support the oil and gas sector to transition to the essential work that we need to undertake on renewables, because Scotland’s future lies as a green energy renewables powerhouse, and the Scottish Government is putting in place the measures to make that happen.

I have explained the challenge and the difficulty. The Government has taken the action of increasing taxation for higher earners in order to invest more in the national health service than would have been the case had we just passed on the consequentials from United Kingdom funding. We have taken the hard decisions, and there was, of course, a time when Mr Sarwar would have supported us, but he has now U-turned on that position. As a consequence of what he said on Tuesday, he wants to cut the money that is available to the public finances.

Mr Sarwar is shaking his head at me. [Interruption.]

There are two aspects to answering that question. The first is the actions of the Scottish Government, and Mr Harvie will be familiar with these points. We have taken a range of decisions to vary the tax position in Scotland and, in some circumstances, to ask higher earners to pay more in taxation where that is appropriate. The Government has set out its position and its fiscal approach to enable that to be the case.

There is then the debate about the forthcoming United Kingdom election. I set out my party’s position yesterday, and if the Presiding Officer will forgive me, I refer Mr Harvie to the contents of our manifesto, which sets out a number of tax and spending changes that we would make to enable the priorities that we set out to be afforded within the financial envelope that is available to us.

I gave Graham Simpson a considered answer. I do not think that it could in any way be described as ideological, because I made the point that evidence shows that new nuclear is more expensive than renewable alternatives. We are facing a cost of living and public finance crisis, so any responsible First Minister will look to make sure that we take the most fiscally efficient approach to energy generation.

This Government, as a result of its clear policy leadership, has successfully decarbonised electricity generation in Scotland. We have developed renewable energy with policy certainty. I want to give the same policy certainty to storage, to hydrogen and to carbon capture technologies, in order to drive economic growth and support green jobs.

What troubles me is that we have fabulous projects in Scotland—in, for example, carbon capture and technology, such as the Acorn project—and we have been led up the garden path by the Treasury and by United Kingdom ministers. I have lost count of the number of times, when I was a senior minister, that UK ministers promised me, face to face, an acceleration of the Acorn project. It has not happened.

I am afraid to say that Graham Simpson does not have a leg to stand on with that question. We have a clear strategy on renewables, and we will pursue it sustainably to deliver for the people of Scotland.

I am very happy to engage on the point that Mr Bibby has raised. I welcome his question, because it provides me with the opportunity to say a bit more about the issue. I have been deeply concerned by the events that have taken place. I have spoken with the leadership of Baillie Gifford; I am concerned about the targeting of that company, because I welcome the philanthropic support that it provides to many organisations. I have reassured the company of the importance that I attach to its contribution to the economy. The disinvestment campaigns are misplaced; I do not think that they achieve their objectives; and they are now jeopardising really important cultural festivals that I know Mr Bibby and I value equally.

I will take away Mr Bibby’s proposal. I said in my original answer that the Government has publicly called for dialogue. Angus Robertson, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, has been engaging heavily on the question with a number of interested parties. However, if a further, more formal dialogue is required, I will consider that proposal and reply to Mr Bibby.

It has been the Scottish Government’s position for a formidable amount of time—it is certainly not something new this week—that climate compatibility assessments have to be undertaken on any particular new oil and gas licence applications. That has been the Scottish Government’s position for some considerable time.

The Government’s position is that we have got to assess our energy security needs, reduce our emissions in line with our climate commitments and deliver affordable energy supplies. The commitment that I willingly give to Lorna Slater is that the Government recognises the absolute necessity of the journey to net zero, which is why there has to be a climate compatibility assessment on any consideration of oil and gas licensing. That is why I will have no truck with the commitment of the Prime Minister to 100 new oil and gas licences without a question being asked.

I understand the significance of the issues that Pam Duncan-Glancy has raised. In previous answers, I have made it clear that, had the Labour Party’s budget proposals been accepted by Glasgow City Council, the reductions in the teaching workforce could have been greater than those that are proposed by the existing city council administration.

However, this is where we get to the hard realities of the public finances. Earlier this year, Pam Duncan-Glancy voted against the tax increases that we had put in place in the budget. That would have reduced the amount of money that is available for public services. [Interruption.]

How is it remotely credible for the Labour Party to come here and ask me to spend more money on local authority services and education services when it wants to deliver austerity in the Scottish Parliament as well as austerity in the United Kingdom Parliament?

I recognise the challenges that exist in dental practice, but I point out that Scotland has 57 dentists per 100,000 of the population, compared with 42 per 100,000 in England and 46 per 100,000 in Wales. The investment that the Government has made in the national health service, and particularly in dentistry, has been an important contribution to establishing and achieving that position. That would not have happened had the Government not given that area priority since we came to office in 2007.

The Government has also undertaken a significant intervention through the introduction of a root-and-branch reform of the NHS dental payment system in November last year. We are in the early days of the implementation of that reform package.

Through the combination of the investment in the workforce and the investment in that reform package, the Government is supporting dentistry in Scotland to achieve the necessary delivery of service to people around the country.

The issue of migration is central to the economic wellbeing of any society. The United Kingdom is putting itself at a formidable competitive disadvantage by taking such a hostile attitude towards migration. We can see that beginning to have an effect on some of our universities, which have been absolutely wonderful examples of international institutions but are now finding their opportunities constrained by the approach to migration, which is damaging to the interests of Scotland. I signal the Scottish Government’s willingness to engage constructively on finding routes to support migration, which will help to boost our economy.

I note the information that was published this week in the Royal Bank of Scotland purchasing managers index report, which showed that, notwithstanding those challenges, private sector business activity growth in Scotland was the second highest across the United Kingdom’s 12 nations and regions, which demonstrates that Scotland is very much open for business.