Chamber and committees

I am mindful that Mr Fraser is on his feet. I will take his intervention.

The social contract that the people of Scotland benefit from can be evidenced in things such as the Scottish child payment, our approach to funded prescriptions, higher education, free personal care for the elderly and the abolition of peak rail fares. As a Government, we are proud to stand by those policies. More broadly, the programme for government sets out a range of different measures that we will propose to support our people. IFS estimates suggest that the lowest-income households have benefited to the tune of around £2,700 a year per person because of some of the interventions that we, as a Government, have made in relation to income tax and benefits.

Scotland’s fiscal outlook is not immune to pressures. The situation mirrors those that are being felt across the United Kingdom and globally. We have the impacts of the middle east conflict, rising energy prices—the news today comes at a very challenging time, as we approach winter—long-term demographic pressures and rising demand for our public services. That demand means that there is much more reliance on our public services, with more families needing support, and the cost of public services is significantly higher than it was only a few years ago. It is against that backdrop that a key priority for this Government has been to maximise the impact of every pound of spending and to continue to deliver on our priorities. That is exactly why the programme for government is so targeted on rewiring the Scottish state so that our services meet the needs of our constituents across the country.

The Scottish Government’s approach is responsible, progressive and deliverable. It protects services, supports families and is based on what Scotland can realistically afford. The Conservative alternative is the opposite of that approach: it is expensive and cruel, and it targets the poorest in our society by harming public services for those who need them most. This SNP Government will continue to get on with the day job of growing our economy and supporting the people of this nation.

I move amendment S7M-01377.4, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:

“recognises that Scotland’s income tax system is the fairest and the most progressive in the UK; notes that the majority of income taxpayers in Scotland continue to pay less tax than in the rest of the UK; recognises that, in a time of economic volatility, Scotland’s income tax policy should be founded, as far as possible, on stability and certainty, and understands the Scottish Government has previously stated that it has no plans to increase the number of bands or their rates over the lifetime of this Parliament.”

16:38

There will always be local mitigations that would be a matter for the local authority. This is a broader point to Ms McDade’s question, but it is the case that the Government has taken a progressive approach to taxation, which has been reflected in the changes that we have introduced on council tax. There may be an opportunity in this Parliament to revisit more substantive changes to the council tax system through public service reform, for example.

It is generally the case that parties that win elections can implement their manifestos in a democracy. I would observe that the Conservatives have gone from leading the Opposition to fifth place, and from 31 to just 12 MSPs. They have gone from being the defenders of the union to being the smallest party in Holyrood. We ought to interrogate how it is that the Tories now find themselves so far away from power, at the back of the chamber. Could it be their own uncosted tax promises, such as the manifesto commitment to cut taxes, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated would cost around £3.7 billion by 2032, or could it be the fact that they wanted to bring back the two-child limit for universal credit by targeting it at recipients of the Scottish child payment and those on disability benefits?

To respond to Mr Fraser’s point, VAT is a reserved matter. We would like powers over VAT to flow to this Parliament so that we could take decisions that would impact on the sector here. I would have thought that Mr Fraser would be in the same place as this Government in supporting such approaches to alleviating pressures on businesses. [Interruption.] Given the heckling, I am not sure that the Conservatives do support that additional support flowing to businesses. I am not sure whether they are now positioning themselves as anti-business. However, I will return to focusing on the content of today’s debate. There might be fewer Tories, but they are—[Interruption.]

I very much welcome the opportunity that the Conservative Party presents this afternoon to debate the Government’s approach to public finances. I spent the morning giving evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and I did not shy away from the need for tough decisions or from being clear with the public about what is achievable.

The public deserve to know where each party stands on taxation. The SNP’s manifesto set out our clear aims on income tax. The Government has committed not to increase income tax rates or the number of bands during the lifetime of this Parliament. We also commit to ensuring that the majority of income taxpayers pay less than they would if they lived in the rest of the United Kingdom. Those are policy choices that recognise the fiscal challenges that lie ahead in this new parliamentary session. Incidentally, I accept Mr Hoy’s points and his contribution.

Our manifesto reiterated our commitment to fair taxation because we believe that it is right that those who are better off pay a little more so that we can all benefit from higher-quality public services. That is why we have committed to introducing a mansion tax on those who live in properties worth more than £1 million. We think that that is the right approach to improving fairness at the top end of the council tax system. In addition, we will introduce a specific rate of air departure tax for private jets, to ensure that those who can afford to do so pay their fair share.

I apologise to Willie Rennie and to Mr Hoy.

On the wider statement, I was before the Finance and Public Administration Committee this morning. There will be a Government debate in Government time tomorrow, and I intend to give an update at that opportune moment. I hope that Mr Hoy will be there to contribute his views.

Those are the Conservative Party’s policy choices: uncosted tax cuts and taking benefits away from some of the most vulnerable. The people of Scotland roundly rejected those proposals in the most recent election. The Institute for Fiscal Studies was very clear that it is

“not credible that additional savings of the scale proposed by the Scottish Conservatives could be made without cuts to the range and quality of services provided to the residents of Scotland”

whom we all serve. Let me be clear with the Parliament what paying for tax cuts would have meant for taxpayers. It would have meant fewer nurses, fewer doctors, fewer police officers and fewer teachers.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to make some progress on what we are doing with that additionality.

The social contract—

Murdo Fraser rose—

The proposals that were set out by ministers on 21 September are intended as a starting point for discussions on local governance reform with those who deliver and use our public services. That dialogue will help us to develop a shared vision for reform and better understand the full implications of change, including the financial impacts. That will ensure that any future projects are aligned with the fiscal challenges that we face while delivering improved outcomes for our people and communities.

It is fair to say that the Government has been up front about the quantum of savings that are required through the portfolio efficiency and reform plans. Together, those plans will help to deliver £1.5 billion of recurring annual savings by 2028-29. I am sure that there will be further questions on that when I attend tomorrow’s meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

More broadly, it is important to set out that, at the current time, local government reform is in a consultative period, and we are engaging with our local government partners on the future shape of local government. I invite Alexander Burnett and his party colleagues to be part of that dialogue to help us to arrive at a shared consensus on the future for local government in Scotland.

I am grateful to Mr Marra for a lecture on my role in the Parliament. Ultimately, today’s debate is about the people of Scotland having the democratic opportunity to express their views on the country’s future. The SNP was elected to be the Government for a fifth successive time, so I invite Mr Marra and his colleagues to reflect on why that was the case.

Kate Campbell rightly called for a clearly defined mechanism that would allow the people of Scotland the right to choose their own future. Ultimately, as we have discussed, that is what today’s debate is about. It is about the inherent democratic deficit in our current constitutional arrangements.

Stuart McMillan, along with various Opposition members, quoted from the SNP’s manifesto. The SNP’s manifesto was clear:

“A vote for the SNP is a vote for a referendum on independence.”

Stuart McMillan called for the Tories to respect the election result in May. As we heard from Keith Brown, the Conservatives were obliterated in the election not four months ago. It is important to reflect on the reasons why the Conservatives went from 31 seats to just 12 in the space of five years. They do not have a mandate to block independence. The people have rejected the Scottish Conservatives, who should reflect on why that is the case.

Liam Kerr talked about some recent results, and he was right in some regards. The people’s vote must be respected, and we need to respect the outcome of the latest Scottish parliamentary election, in which the SNP was re-elected.

I am mindful of the time. In closing, I want to reflect on the purpose of today’s motion, which states:

“That the Parliament agrees that Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future.”

That is a simple statement on which, I hope, we can all agree. Continuing to just say no and assert that independence is off the table is simply unsustainable. Andy Burnham knows that. Indeed, the new Prime Minister has said as much himself. He has said that Westminster is not working, and SNP members agree. Something has to give.

We all know that the clock is ticking on the future of the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have elected independence-supporting First Ministers. Election results are pulling at the very constitutional fabric of these islands. Just because a right has been exercised once does not mean that people should never have the opportunity to exercise it again—not if that is what they wish to do.

In his comments on 9 September, the Prime Minister appeared to accept that basic principle. He knows that our current arrangements do not work for the UK, which is exactly why he has established Number 10 North. It is therefore time for the Prime Minister to meet our First Minister and to agree the mechanism that is required to hold a second independence referendum and to give the people of our country a say. Scotland’s future must be in Scotland’s hands.