Scottish Parliament, 10 December 2014

288 contributions from 57 members. The official report.

Fair Work, Skills and Training

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions. To get as many questions in as possible, I would prefer short and succinct questions and answers.

Graeme Dey does not appear to be here to ask question 1, so we will go straight to question 2.

Youth Employment (Edinburgh Western)

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what the youth employment trends are in the Edinburgh Western constituency. (S4O-03792)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Office for National Statistics advises that the sample size in the annual population survey for the past two years is too small to obtain a statistically reliable indication of recent youth employment trends in the Edinburgh Western constituency. However, I can say to the member that youth unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest rate for five years and that, in comparison with the United Kingdom, we have a higher youth employment rate and a lower youth inactivity rate.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

Does the minister agree that programmes for investment in young people, such as learning for life, which is run by Diageo in my constituency, are vital if we are to maintain professional competence and drive in all sectors of the economy?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree that investing in our young workforce is essential for sustainable economic growth across all sectors of the economy. It is clear to me that employers have a crucial role to play in the development of young people. Diageo is a shining example of a business that recognises that tapping into the talents of a young and diverse workforce not only is the right thing to do but makes economic sense for employers and for Scotland. Diageo’s commitment to youth employment was recognised recently when the company was among the first in Scotland to gain the new investors in young people award, which is an accolade that the Scottish Government supports for businesses that have a strong track record of recruiting and developing Scotland’s young women and men.

The rolling out of an accolade that recognises firms that have taken a particular interest in supporting our young people was a key recommendation of the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce. The investors in young people award is available only in Scotland and is another example of how the Scottish Government and Scottish employers are committed to supporting our young men and women into employment and to growing their talent.

Living Wage (Education Sector)

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that all workers in the education sector are being paid at least the living wage. (S4O-03793)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As the member will know, we are the first and only Government in the United Kingdom to commit to paying the living wage to employees who are covered by our pay policy and to employees in the national health service. However, the Scottish Government is not able to set pay levels in the private sector or indeed in the wider public sector. Pay for higher and further education and local government employees is a matter for their employers and trade unions. That said, as the member also knows, we strongly encourage all organisations to follow our example.

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

I welcome the recent announcement about the agreement that has been reached to ensure that all cleaners at Scottish Government locations will be paid the living wage. However, the agreement relates only to staff who are directly employed by the Scottish Government. Last week, James Kelly pointed out that Mitie employs cleaners in Anniesland College who are indirectly paid by the Scottish Government but are not being paid the living wage. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that all companies that bid for new or renewed contracts with the Scottish Government will be required to pay at least the living wage to all their employees in future?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As I just said, we are not able to set pay policy other than for our direct employees, and conversations about people who are contracted in the wider public sector need to be had with the individual organisations, such as colleges, and directly with the contractors.

However, as I think the member is aware, we will publish statutory guidance to the wider public sector—that should be done by the end of 2015. I very much hope that people will take notice of the guidance, which will be for public bodies and will be on how workforce-related matters, including the living wage, may be taken into account in public procurement processes. We simply do not have the power, at the moment, to mandate what the member—and, indeed, I—would like to see.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the real answer to Mr Malik’s problem would come if Scotland had control of the statutory minimum wage and could then control pay policy throughout society?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Of course. It is unfortunate that the Smith commission recommendations do not go as far as we would have liked. If we had control of the minimum wage, we could set policy in a much more direct fashion than we are currently able to do and that would also help with the slightly tricky procurement issues in respect of the European Union directives.

Youth Employment Training (Support)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what support it has given to youth employment training in the last year. (S4O-03794)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The number of young people unemployed in Scotland is at its lowest level for five years, with Scotland outperforming the United Kingdom on both youth employment and youth inactivity rates.

In each year of the current parliamentary session, the Government has asked Skills Development Scotland to deliver 25,000 modern apprenticeships, increasing year on year to 30,000 by 2020, and 17,150 pre-employment training places through the employability fund. The majority of starts on those programmes continue to be firmly targeted at young people. In addition, we have established the youth employment Scotland fund, which supports employers to recruit young people, and community jobs Scotland, which provides job training opportunities for young people in a supportive third sector environment. Such interventions continue to enhance the skills of our young people and support transitions to further study, training and employment.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

According to the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, 16.6 per cent of the population of my Kirkcaldy constituency is employment deprived, compared with 12.8 per cent of the population of Scotland as a whole. What additional support does the Scottish Government make available to prepare young people who are living in deprived areas for employment?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Opportunities for all is the Government’s explicit commitment to offering a place in learning or training to every 16 to 19-year-old who is not in employment, education or training. Through local youth employment activity plans, Skills Development Scotland is working with local partners across Fife and Scotland to make sure that training provision is closely aligned to the needs of young people in each local authority area. In that way, we ensure access for all regardless of social background.

Furthermore, a refresh of the youth employment strategy will be published this month and will focus on the long-term aim of implementing the recommendations of the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce. In the context of improving labour market conditions, there will be a refocus of current programmes to incentivise the recruitment of young people who face barriers. We will support small businesses to offer modern apprenticeship opportunities and there will also be a focus on encouraging businesses to offer more higher-level modern apprenticeships.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Why are 30,000 16 to 19-year-olds not in education, employment or training when there are so many of the strategies that the minister has now repeated three times today on offer?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There are indeed a number of strategies, but surely we are all determined that our young people should have opportunities in life. The modern apprenticeship programme is indeed exceeding its ambitious target of creating 25,000 apprenticeships a year, rising to 30,000 by 2020.

It is also fair to reflect that the unemployment trend in Scotland is at its lowest for five years. That is evidence of the direction of travel that our policies are ensuring in Scotland. We all have a duty to our young people to do all that we can to maximise their opportunities. In my new portfolio, I hope to work with people across the chamber to ensure that that objective is met.

Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce (Implementation of Findings)

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making with the implementation of the findings of the report of the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce. (S4O-03795)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Since publication of commission’s report in June, we have made considerable progress in taking forward its recommendations. We have already deployed £5 million of £12 million allocated in 2014-15, with a further £16.6 million set aside for this work in 2015-16. Our commitment to the young workforce is clear.

I will be able to say a good deal more about how we will implement the commission’s recommendations next week, during the debate in the chamber.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The National Deaf Children’s Society has highlighted that deaf young people’s educational outcomes and opportunities to enter the workforce vary dramatically in comparison with those of their peers without additional support needs. The cabinet secretary will be aware of tomorrow’s members’ business debate on deaf children’s educational attainment. Will she commit to ensuring that deaf young people’s specific needs are not forgotten as the commission’s findings are implemented?

Although I welcome the commission’s recommendations to increase opportunities for young disabled people, will the cabinet secretary consider the NDCS’s recommendations to improve deaf young people’s educational, employment and training outcomes?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I thank Jayne Baxter for raising that issue in the chamber. It is important for us to remember that there are a great many access needs across our society. I discussed some of them at the national economic forum this morning and the issue of disabled access to employment was part of that conversation.

I reassure Jayne Baxter that we are taking on board all those issues. We are not only looking at issues for the young workforce, but implementing the fair work programme, which I am taking forward on roughly the same timescale. Jayne Baxter might be pleased when she hears more information about that, because it is very much part and parcel of what we want to ensure: that everybody, regardless of their background or ability, is able to get some access to employment, and to make that employment the best that it can be.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The commission’s recommendation 15 says:

“Businesses across Scotland should be encouraged and supported to enter into 3-5 year partnerships with secondary schools. Every secondary school in Scotland and its feeder primaries should be supported by at least one business in a long-term partnership.”

Does the minister agree that a partnership approach is very important to increase school pupils’ understanding of local businesses in their area? What specific support is the Government providing to ensure that that recommendation is implemented across Scotland?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As Jamie McGrigor knows, we are talking about a seven-year programme across the sectors. Early action is clearly needed to assess the cost of full implementation over the whole of those seven years. However, we are confident that the £28.6 million allocated over this year and next will address costs in the early stages. The commission recommended that its recommendations should be met through mainstream funding; it was not looking for additional special funding.

Jamie McGrigor raises an important issue and we are aware of the need to ensure that the partnerships develop as well as they can. This will not work without partnership development. Partnerships are not just about what Jamie McGrigor is talking about; they go much wider than that.

We are absolutely clear that partnerships will not succeed without the involvement of schools and the education sector. That is why we are putting a very strong focus on them, which will be very much part and parcel of what we will discuss next week in the chamber.

Young People (Recruitment and Training by Smaller and Micro Businesses)

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has developed a recruitment incentive package to equip and support smaller and micro businesses to recruit and train more young people. (S4O-03796)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In response to the economic downturn that followed the 2008 global financial crisis, the Scottish Government acted quickly in partnership with local authorities to establish the youth employment Scotland fund, which offers recruitment incentives to help micro, small and medium-sized businesses employ young people.

Given the improving labour market conditions, we will be reviewing that fund and other recruitment incentives. The review will form part of our refresh of the youth employment strategy and will be in the context of our work to implement the recommendations of the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce’s report, “Education Working For All!”

I look forward to hearing members’ contributions to the debate on our implementation plan, which will, as the cabinet secretary indicated, take place next week.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Great progress has been made in Dumfries and Galloway on modern apprenticeships, with numbers having doubled since 2007. As the minister said, there will be further benefits when the Wood report recommendations are implemented, in particular with more help being given to micro businesses, which dominate in the area. How will that implementation be rolled out across the country?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the member for her interest in the subject. I am delighted with the increase in the number of modern apprenticeship starts in Dumfries and Galloway since 2007. We will of course seek to build on that with a wider expansion of the modern apprenticeship programme, as we work towards our new ambitious target of 30,000 new opportunities each year by 2020.

Through the development of skills investment plans and wider industry engagement, we are identifying opportunities to promote the benefits of apprenticeships to businesses big and small across Scotland.

As recommended by the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce, we are working to better understand the barriers that are faced by small and medium-sized enterprises when taking on modern apprentices. We will look to develop appropriate support to help those businesses throughout Scotland.

Details of our plans will be included in the implementation plan, which we look forward to debating next week.

Work Programme (Devolution to Local Authorities)

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will support devolving to local authorities delivery of the work currently carried out under the Department for Work and Pensions’ work programme. (S4O-03797)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Government agrees that partnership is crucial to the current delivery of employability services in Scotland. That commitment was clearly set out in our 2012 employability framework, “Working for Growth”, continuing through the Scottish employability forum. Partnership will therefore be key to the successful delivery of any new employment programmes.

We recognise the need for, and value of, locally tailored services to meet the needs of individuals and local labour markets. We think that we can do that best in concert with the third sector and local authority employability schemes.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Glasgow is the powerhouse of the Scottish economy. With the ability to tailor support for jobseekers that reflects the reality of local labour markets around the country, we have a real opportunity to improve the successor arrangements for the work programme.

Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet representatives of Glasgow City Council in early course to discuss devolution of the work programme? Will she give further consideration to how the work of Skills Development Scotland could be better aligned to take into account local need and local opportunity?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

It is fair to say that, since the Smith commission report was published, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Skills Development Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have all expressed a view that they would be able to run the new employment programmes emanating from the agreed devolution. We do not actually have that devolution yet, of course, and we are still in the process of trying to establish when that will come to us.

However, I am happy to commit to meeting representatives of whichever organisation members wish me to meet to discuss all the issues that lie within this area of my portfolio responsibility. In any case, I would have expected to meet representatives of organisations as large as Glasgow City Council in the normal course of events. I can promise the member that that conversation will take place.

Work Programme (Extension)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the extension of the Department for Work and Pensions’ work programme. (S4O-03798)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Last week, I wrote to Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to note that the decision of UK ministers to extend the work programme contract without reference to the Scottish Government was incompatible with the terms of the Smith commission agreement on the devolution of contracted DWP programmes.

On 3 December, Iain Duncan Smith responded to me to indicate that ministers had made the decision in August and would not change that decision.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I agree with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which said that the extension of the contract has caused a

“delay in ridding Scotland of this exploitative, punitive and under-performing programme.”

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, when Scotland designs its own employability programmes, such as community jobs Scotland, which cost just £35 million and is approaching its 5,000th successful job, they meet employment and training needs far better than the UK Government? Does she agree that the UK’s decision should be reversed, and that the work programme should be passed to Scotland as a matter of urgency?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I agree, of course. Drew Smith might be interested in this aspect of the discussion, too. I can assure Bob Doris that our ambitions in delivering employment services through the devolved powers outlined by the Smith commission exceed the success that the work programme has so far achieved in Scotland, which, by our assessment, is nowhere near good enough.

In designing employability services, we can continue to draw on the strengths of a range of partners—I have already mentioned Skills Development Scotland, local authorities and the third sector—and build on their current successful delivery across a range of initiatives.

The Scottish Government is committed to providing the best possible support for the unemployed, but we do not believe that we can do that unless we have the ability to make the changes that we consider to be necessary. Right now, it does not look as though we will have that ability any time in the near future.

New Homes (Town Centres)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage more new homes to be built in town centre locations. (S4O-03801)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Scottish Government’s town centre action plan is clear on our commitment to town centre living. We launched a £2.75 million town centre housing fund to bring more empty town centre properties back into residential use. That will secure 82 units for affordable housing.

Complementing that, new guidance that was published in August 2014 encourages local authorities to fully consider the role that town centres can play as residential communities when drawing up their local housing strategies.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for her response. I am sure that she will be aware that, with the changing nature of retail, we are seeing more and more disused shops in secondary trading situations. What more can be done to encourage conversion of those disused shops into residential properties? Also, what more can be done to encourage conversion of empty spaces above shops in town centre locations? In relation to planning, what specific encouragement will the Scottish Government give to local authorities to be more flexible in their approach to applications for such conversions?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

We have certainly given guidance to local authorities through our town centre first principle. Also, we have not just the town centre housing fund, but the empty homes fund, which is about encouraging town centre properties to be brought back into use. I have visited some of those properties recently. We are looking again at our empty homes loan fund and trying to align it better with our town centre housing fund in order to make the best use of those funds. One of the things that we are looking at is premises that are above shops or retail spaces. We are also looking at retail premises that are no longer in use, or that will no longer be in use, for retail purposes.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Can the minister tell me how many affordable homes were built as a result of the investment in the town centre housing fund and what the current status of the fund is?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

As I mentioned in my initial answer, 82 properties will be secured through the town centre housing fund. Through the empty homes fund, we brought 76 properties back into use in its first year, 278 properties back into use the following year and this year we have already exceeded that figure. Some of those empty homes are in town centres and some are not. The town centre housing fund has all been used and we intend to bring 82 homes into use through it.

Empty Shops

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Local Data Company’s recent report on empty shop numbers. (S4O-03802)

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the recent finding in the Local Data Company’s report that the retail vacancy rate in Scotland has fallen from 14.5 per cent in 2013 to 13.7 per cent this year.

That statistic does not reflect local variation, but it does suggest that, overall, the town centre action plan may already be having a positive impact. The “Town Centre Action Plan—One Year On” report, which was published on 4 November, provides a progress update of the activity that is under way and highlights the measures that are designed to help our town centres to diversify, including the adoption of the town centre first principle, the promotion of the business improvement district model and related initiatives such as the can do towns challenge.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I thank the minister for that answer. He will be aware that Anstruther, in my constituency, was highlighted as one of the most improved towns. It was also found to have the highest proportion of independent shops. Does the minister believe that that is a factor in the reduction in shop vacancies? What additional support can the Government offer to independent business start-ups?

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Anstruther is well known for its independent shops, including—if I may say so—the sort of independent fish and chip shops that quite literally put food on my table as I was growing up. I congratulate all who are involved in making the place a success.

The town centre action plan recognises the value of healthy small businesses. I highlight the support that we are giving, through the most generous package of support for small business anywhere in the United Kingdom, which totals £594 million, and through the small business bonus—which helps businesses with small properties or a small number of people—fresh start relief, business gateway and the enterprise agencies.

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill that is currently going through Parliament will allow local authorities to launch targeted business rates schemes of their own, which they may well wish to focus on town centres.

Pensioners’ Rights (Impact of Ageing Populations)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of an ageing population on pensioners’ rights. (S4O-03803)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Before I answer the question, I wish Ms Boyack all the best in the Labour Party leadership election. Had I a vote, I would have voted for her.

The Scottish Government routinely uses emerging evidence on demographic change in its policy development process. As a consequence, we have undertaken a range of actions to support pensioners’ rights.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. Sadly, the ballot is now closed, so he can no longer join our party and give me that vote.

With the proportion of the population who are of pensionable age being projected to increase in the coming decades, we are all interested to know more about the impact that that will have on the Scottish Government’s responsibility for public sector pensions. I note from this year’s budget that the overall funding for the Scottish Public Pensions Agency is set to increase by more than 40 per cent in real terms, which includes an increase of more than 50 per cent in funding for the national health service superannuation scheme.

Can the cabinet secretary clarify the reason behind the significant increase, and provide assurances that funding for public sector pension schemes is sustainable in the long term?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, I emphasise Sarah Boyack’s point about the ageing population. The figures for the next 20 years show that the number of 75-year-olds will increase very significantly. In fact, the registrar general estimates that one fifth of all the babies born in Scotland today will live until they are 100 years of age. That increase is a permanent feature of our society, not a short-term phenomenon.

On public sector pensions, Sarah Boyack will know that we have in the past two or three years been in detailed discussions with the Treasury, because the United Kingdom Government has responsibility for most of those pensions and for deciding the employer and employee contributions. She will know that the employee contribution has been rising in recent years, even at a time of pay restraint, which we have opposed. That is one of the reasons why the funding situation has changed. The UK Government is now increasing the employer contribution, which is one of the major reasons why there is such pressure on our health budget, for example.

Empowering Communities Fund (Additional Investment)

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what benefit it expects the additional £10 million being invested in funding and empowering communities to bring. (S4O-03804)

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government expects that additional funding to bring huge benefits to communities throughout Scotland, especially those that are suffering disadvantage.

The precise benefits will be determined by communities themselves, as they are best placed to know which challenges and opportunities to focus on in order to deliver more prosperity and fairness.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The new £10 million empowering communities fund is very welcome, and I will certainly encourage communities in my Falkirk East constituency to take advantage of it.

For communities to be engaged, however, requires local bodies such as community councils to be active. As the minister will be aware, there are some areas of Scotland without community councils. What can the Scottish Government do to encourage participation and ensure that every square mile of Scotland is represented by a community council?

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Local authorities have statutory oversight of community councils and are required to set up schemes for their areas. We have been working since 2013 in collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Improvement Service to roll out support, start a website to raise public awareness, provide resources and work through the network of community council liaison officers.

The Government takes community empowerment very seriously, but it must work from the ground up. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill recognises the importance of bodies such as community councils and will confer extra powers on them. I know from some of my visits that, where community councils set up community development trusts, they often demonstrate what a great job community councils can do. There is nothing better for community empowerment than leadership by example.

Referendum (Democratic Participation)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure that the high level of democratic participation seen in the referendum continues. (S4O-03805)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The Scottish Government has a strong record of public engagement, which is demonstrated through a programme of Cabinet meetings in venues the length and breadth of Scotland, an extensive series of public town hall meetings and regular engagement with stakeholders. We want to continue that conversation with the people of Scotland and be a Government that is defined by its openness and accessibility.

In the summer, we launched a consultation exercise to seek views on how we can improve the quality of democracy in Scotland by encouraging wider engagement and participation in elections. Our programme for government, which was published in November, sets out our commitment to strengthen the way in which we engage and involve people and communities in decision making so that they get the opportunity to argue for the outcomes that they want. In doing that, we will use the lessons learned in the referendum to harness and maintain the incredible participation and engagement levels that we all witnessed.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The minister will be as aware as I am of the democratic participation that took place, from the very youngest in our society to, shall I say, the more mature. Like me, he will be delighted to hear that the Labour Party now supports votes at 16. In a recent debate that I led, members of all parties supported votes at 16. Given that, does he agree that we should have responsibility for the franchise transferred to the Scottish Parliament as quickly as possible, rather than wait for the Smith proposals, to ensure that 16-year-olds can vote in the 2016 election?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The short answer is yes. The Smith commission recognised the need for that to happen. It recommended that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections.

Lord Smith called on the United Kingdom Parliament to devolve the relevant powers in sufficient time to allow the Scottish Parliament to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 election. The First Minister has emphasised the need to make rapid progress on that, including in a letter to the Prime Minister on 26 November and when she met the Secretary of State for Scotland on 4 December.

Glasgow City Council (Meetings)

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

6. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights last met representatives of Glasgow City Council and what matters were discussed. (S4O-03806)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have not had the pleasure of meeting representatives of Glasgow City Council since assuming my current ministerial responsibilities.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating Glasgow City Council on its affordable warmth dividend, which is paid to the over-80s? To ensure that that good work in directly tackling fuel poverty continues, will he ensure that Glasgow receives a fair award in the local government finance settlement, on which we will hear a statement tomorrow?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The local government finance settlement remains the responsibility of my colleague the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, John Swinney. It would be entirely wrong of me to pre-empt the statement that he will make to Parliament.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that deafblind people in Glasgow have to contribute up to £168 per week to Glasgow City Council for a guide communicator, whereas deaf people can access a British Sign Language interpreter free at the point of use? Will he confirm whether other local authorities provide free guide communicators to deafblind people? Does he agree that charging for guide communicators risks depriving deafblind people of essential support, which can affect not just their quality of life but their ability to do what the rest of us take for granted?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have a lot of sympathy with the fair points that Margaret Mitchell makes. A wider issue is the social care charge increases in Glasgow City Council in recent times. As she knows, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has strict guidelines on how care charges should be applied. Clearly, an issue has to be addressed in Glasgow, because some of the increases have been extremely steep, and they apply to the most vulnerable members of our community. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy with the member’s point but, as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights, I have no powers to intervene.

Anti-poverty Measures (Highlands)

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what specific anti-poverty measures it considers are needed to support people in the Highlands. (S4O-03807)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The challenges of living in rural areas are well understood. Increasing travel and fuel costs and issues with access to digital services can often have a greater impact in rural areas such as the Highlands and Islands. The measures that are needed to address those challenges are wide ranging and there is no single solution.

Our revised child poverty strategy takes a national approach to tackling poverty with the aim of improving outcomes for households across Scotland. It includes actions such as investing more than £300 million since 2009 and a further £94 million this year and next in measures to address fuel poverty, and encouraging greater digital participation and use of the internet in rural areas.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

In a parliamentary debate just over 18 months ago, I raised the issue of higher electricity prices in the Highlands and Islands. Does the minister think that it is socially just that electricity consumers in the north pay more for their electricity than those in other parts of the land?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The member raises an important issue. He will be aware that energy regulation and prices are a reserved matter. However, as the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, said in Parliament last month, the Government is

“concerned about the level of energy bills throughout the country”

and

“especially in the north of Scotland.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; c 8.]

Fergus Ewing has since raised the issue of high electricity bills in the north of Scotland directly with the chief executive of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, and he has written to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Fergus Ewing has highlighted our concerns about the impact of the charging arrangements and the apparently slow pace of progress in Ofgem’s further investigation, and he will continue to press for a timely and effective resolution.

North Lanarkshire Council (Meetings)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights last met North Lanarkshire Council. (S4O-03808)

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Neither the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights nor I have met representatives of North Lanarkshire Council since assuming our current ministerial responsibilities.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Labour-controlled North Lanarkshire Council is still dragging its feet on settling staff pay claims. It continues to have meetings to discuss the matter in private. It does not allow opposition councillors to see paperwork before those meetings and it gathers the paperwork back in after the meetings. In the light of Labour’s hypocrisy on paying the living wage but failing to meet equal pay claims, what action can the minister take to ensure that the council stops dragging its feet?

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am appalled at the level of reluctance and foot dragging that has been demonstrated and which I have observed in the country. It is unfair to women, and fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying out stands against all values of fairness.

Unfortunately, because of the close legal relationship between the employer and the employee, the Scottish Government has no power to intervene. However, I repeat that such behaviour is unacceptable. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, and there is no place for this historical wrong to be defended in court by people who are supposed to represent all people in their area, whatever gender they may be. I do not think that what is happening should go unchallenged, and I do not intend to let that happen.

Paternity Leave (Fathers in Receipt of Jobseekers Allowance on Mandatory Placements)

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what the equalities impact will be in Scotland of the United Kingdom Government’s decision not to honour the legal entitlement for paternity leave for fathers who are in receipt of jobseekers allowance and are in mandatory work or community placements. (S4O-03809)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government believes that, ideally, all fathers, including those on out-of-work benefits, should be able to spend quality time with their new babies. I urge the Department for Work and Pensions to examine the policy again and to consider whether it is in the best interests of children. This UK Government policy threatens to be detrimental to low-income, vulnerable families.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the policy undermines the early years work that the Scottish Government is carrying out across portfolios to reduce poverty and inequality?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I absolutely agree. As the member knows, we have a range of initiatives, including the expansion of nursery entitlement, the early years collaborative and the early years change fund. It ill behoves the UK Government to impose such a restriction at a time of need, particularly when it preaches the values of family life. Our view is that family life should be promoted and protected at every opportunity and that fathers should get the maximum opportunity to look after their children at such a young age. I totally agree with the member and think that, from a humanitarian point of view, the UK Government should think again on its policy.

Smith Commission

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-11830, in the name of Ruth Davidson, on the Smith commission.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Smith commission process was a remarkable feat of fast-forward constitutional reform. As this Parliament debates the commission’s verdict for the first time today, let me state the facts.

The proposals that were unveiled by Lord Smith, coming on top of those that were introduced by the Calman commission, will create in Scotland one of the most powerful Parliaments of its kind anywhere in the world. Those powers will ensure that real responsibility exists for the way in which money is both spent and raised; they will give the Scottish Government real choice over taxation and welfare; and they will make ministers accountable for their decisions. The powers will end the tired old grievance politics that have dominated our debates for too long; instead, they will force our Government to think about the taxpayers and businesses whose efforts pay their bills. Lord Smith and all the party nominees are to be congratulated on reaching that deal, which will secure the foundations for a more powerful and responsible Parliament—a Parliament that does not just spend tens of billions of pounds of hard-earned money but has to think about where that money comes from: the taxpayer.

More decisions will be made in Scotland, but we also keep the crucial binding elements of the union: the state pension, the single market and the shared currency. We keep those because the people of this nation instructed us to do so. I have said before in this chamber and I say again now that the only fixed constitutional settlement on the ballot in September was independence, and it was expressly rejected by the voters of this country. Now, under Smith, we will be able to choose whether to raise taxes or cut them and whether to spend more on welfare, transport or anything else. There are big decisions to be made on fracking, on whether to lower the voting age and on the tax that we pay at our airports—those issues are all to be devolved. We know that it will take time for the reforms to come into practice, but what surely cannot now be doubted is the political will to bring them in.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will the member give way?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

If the two gentlemen can decide between themselves, I will give way to one.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Like the member, I very much welcome the new powers for this Parliament. Does she assert that we will be more powerful than the provinces of Canada, the states of the United States, the Länder of Germany and the states of Australia?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Your point is?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Can the member tell us of any tax in any of those places that we cannot assert? She will not have to look very far.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I welcome the member’s welcome for the Smith commission powers and tell him that I do not need to assert anything. As I said on Thursday during First Minister’s question time, we asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to look into the point that he has raised and it came back showing that even the Länder of Germany and the states of the United States do not have the powers over tax raising or tax spending that this legislature will have.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Will the member give way?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Not at this time.

Let us look at the timetable for the transfer of powers. We know that the draft clauses that flesh out the heads of agreement will be produced by 25 January, meeting the next phase of our commitment to the people of Scotland.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Scotland has already brought together a team of leading officials in the Scotland Office, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office. Their task is now to work together to ensure that we get a representative, coherent piece of legislation that delivers. I hope that everyone in the chamber will also welcome and acknowledge that that team will remain in place after the general election to ensure that the plans move forward into law, no matter the result in May.

I, for one, add my support to ensuring that, where possible, the reforms that we have backed are devolved as soon as is practicably possible. In particular, given that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland have caught the democratic bug, I want to see them in the polling booths again in 17 months’ time.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will Ruth Davidson set out whether all the proposals need to be delivered in one legislative instrument or whether there is an argument to continue, as she set out a moment ago? If there is a case for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds to be devolved early, is there also a case for other powers to be devolved early if they do not require primary legislation?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

If we use the Scotland Act 2012 as our template for constitutional change, we will have a single legislative instrument—a single act—that transfers powers at different times.

I am pleased with the way that the pro-union parties have delivered. In September, I, Willie Rennie and Johann Lamont jointly supported a timetable for reform. On the morning of 19 September, the Prime Minister announced that Lord Smith of Kelvin would chair the negotiations for an all-party deal to crack on. In October, the command paper was published well ahead of schedule. In November, the Smith commission produced its report as promised. That is a record of delivery and commitments honoured, and it contrasts with the way in which the Scottish National Party has behaved.

On 20 September, as the process was already under way and as the SNP was being included in it, Alex Salmond claimed that we were reneging on commitments and accused us of shameless behaviour. We then had an untypically graceless performance from the Deputy First Minister at the launch of the report that he had signed only the night before. The new First Minister tweeted lines that she did not like and stood in the chamber to decry it as disappointing. Then we had the pathetic spectacle of three elected SNP councillors setting fire to the document outside their council chambers.

They signed it on Wednesday, whined about it on Thursday and burned it on Tuesday. Those are not the actions of a party that was dealing in good faith.

I know the SNP lines on that. It says that the vow was not honoured and insists that, somehow, the people of Scotland were let down, when what it really means is that the Smith recommendations are not full independence. It is the SNP and the SNP alone that feels aggrieved.

I say again that the people of Scotland specifically rejected independence. They want devolution to work. We are making that happen.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will Ruth Davidson give way?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Not at this time.

The SNP would be unwise in the extreme to place roadblocks in the way of that development or to create straw men to knock down.

The SNP’s complaints are misplaced and staggeringly hypocritical. Had the outcome in September been different, the party would now be trying to explain how its promises on the economy could withstand an oil price that is nearly half what it claimed it would be. The Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that the SNP’s figures already contained a £6 billion black hole, so the mind boggles at what would have happened when its fantasy economics collided with the reality of a volatile oil market.

On the subject of the SNP’s response to Lord Smith’s report, I must also express disappointment at the nationalist amendment to our motion. This debate was an opportunity for all five parties to back a path forward following the commission’s proposals. We welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment, which calls for more devolution within Scotland. However, the SNP has chosen to rewrite our motion, purely, it seems, because it objects to the use of the word “significant” to describe the new powers that are coming our way. It is pretty risible stuff and I am afraid that it betrays once again the ideological blinkers of the nationalist Government.

Let me tell members that complete control over income tax bands and rates, with the money raised returning directly to the Scottish Government, is significant. The assignment of VAT is significant. The increased borrowing powers are significant. The devolution of power over air passenger duty and the aggregates levy is significant. In welfare, the power to top up any existing benefit is significant. The power for the Scottish Government to create any new benefits that it likes in any devolved area is significant. The devolution of attendance allowance and disability benefits is significant. The power to make variations in housing benefit is significant.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

Will Ruth Davidson give way?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have a long list and I am still going, so I will not give way at this point.

The devolution of the work programme—the largest welfare-to-work programme in United Kingdom history—is significant. Powers over elections, including changing the voting age, are significant. The devolution of the Crown Estate is significant. Devolution of tribunals, rail franchising and the British Transport Police is significant. The power over fracking is also significant.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will Ruth Davidson give way?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I look forward to any SNP MSP proving me wrong by having the good grace to stand up and say that that package of powers is significant. That includes Mark McDonald. Will he do that?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

We have made it quite clear that we welcome new powers coming to this Parliament, but Ruth Davidson must accept that a range of organisations from civic Scotland have said that they are underwhelmed by the proposals. She talks about the SNP wearing blinkers, but surely the suggestion that it is only the SNP that is disappointed by the extent of the Smith commission proposals when such a feeling exists in civic Scotland is a classic example of the unionists wearing blinkers.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I reject that entirely. The Smith commission took submissions from people right across the land. For example, it took a submission from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which specifically rejected Scotland having control over corporation tax, just as the Scottish Trades Union Congress and many other organisations did, so I do not accept the member’s point at all.

I move on to the proposals themselves. The challenge now is to spell out how the new responsibilities will be used. That is a massive challenge for us all. All 128 members, every party and the Government now need to add to our skill set so that we are ready to make the best use of our expanded role.

On tax and spending, the challenge is enormous. Instead of simply banking the annual cheque, it will be for this Parliament to decide how it manages its own account. That brings with it serious choices.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I want to make progress.

From Labour and the SNP, for example, we already hear calls to increase income taxation. That will be their choice and one that they can take to the electorate of this country. For my part, my priorities will be simple. First, I want to reduce the taxes that we will be responsible for. Early next year, the Scottish Conservatives will launch our low tax commission, which will examine how we can better use the basket of taxes that we will soon have control over and will advise us how best to go forward as a dynamic, low-tax nation.

Secondly, we will support all moves to grow the tax base. The “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures show that, per head of population, income tax receipts are lower in Scotland than they are in the UK as a whole, but if we got those receipts up to UK levels, nearly £2 billion more per year would flow into the Scottish Government’s coffers. That creates a real incentive for the Scottish Government to do so. Given that half of all VAT is to be assigned here too, there is also an incentive to grow retail sales to support Scottish businesses that make and sell things. That is the prize on offer if we drive our economy forward, and it is, I suggest, a significant prize.

We will also face big challenges on how we use the new welfare powers. Again, we will no doubt differ in our approach to how those powers should be used. I support reform of our welfare system that gives help and encouragement to people to get back to work and which cuts the country’s benefits bill. The SNP opposes that reform. I back a cap on the amount that any one family can claim in welfare. The SNP says that it wants to lift that cap. I believe that it should not be possible to claim more in benefits than the average family earns through work. The SNP does not agree.

The choices that ministers face in this area are immense. The new personal independence payment system is to be devolved to the Scottish Government. The work programme will also be devolved. In addition, ministers will be able to propose entirely new benefits if they so wish. Just as the Scottish Government has chosen to eliminate the spare-room subsidy in Scotland, it will have the power to act in other areas, too. It could offer a resettlement benefit to prisoners who leave jail, a payment to lone parents in parts of Scotland who need childcare and even a Scottish winter wind and rain allowance for days like today. It may choose to offer all or none of those things, but the choice is there to be made.

What is proposed will take time to implement. Switching over complex benefit systems to the Scottish Government, which does not currently have the technical infrastructure to support those mechanisms, means that capacity will have to be built. That is something that we need to do right. We need the Scottish Government to act in good faith to ensure that that capacity is built and that the transition is a smooth one.

When he published his proposals last month, Lord Smith rightly described the commission’s work as an “unprecedented achievement.” He added:

“It demanded compromise from all of the parties. In some cases that meant moving to devolve greater powers than they had previously committed to, while for other parties it meant accepting the outcome would fall short of their ultimate ambitions. It shows that, however difficult, our political leaders can come together, work together, and reach agreement with one another.”

I believe that he was right in that assessment. I also believe that voters in Scotland expect us to agree something else, too—that it is well past time for us to focus on the powers that we have and those that are coming to us rather than stoke false grievance about those powers that will remain reserved.

People in Scotland gave us their decision. They want a powerful Scottish Parliament that remains within rather than being separate from the United Kingdom. The work that the Smith commission has put in means that we have the tools to deliver on that verdict, so let us get on and use them.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees with the Smith Commission’s proposals to devolve significant new powers to the Parliament; welcomes the fact that all five parties represented at the Parliament came together to reach an agreement on these powers, and now recognises the need to move on from a debate about what powers are devolved to one that focuses on how best to use these significant new powers for the betterment of the people of Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I seem to have offended Ruth Davidson in the formulation of the Government’s amendment and in my comments on this subject. However, I find it rather strange that she has taken exception to my comments, given that I opened my remarks to the gathering at the national museum of Scotland by welcoming the additional powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament and then pointing out the limitations of the settlement.

That is exactly the point that Ruth Davidson has just made, and which Lord Smith, too, reflected on: some parties will not believe that this is enough. It should not come as a particularly great surprise to anyone in the chamber that I did not believe that all of the powers that should have been delivered were delivered. As my colleagues have pointed out in their interventions, that view has been expressed by not just the Scottish National Party but a whole host of different organisations including the STUC, Engender and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

In the Government’s amendment, I have raised three issues that are substantively different from the proposition that the Conservatives have put forward, and they are material and serious points that the Parliament needs to reflect on. First, our amendment

“calls on both governments to produce draft clauses for the recommendations jointly to maintain this agreement”.

I cannot for the life of me understand why that proposition is not being taken forward; indeed, it was put to the Prime Minister in a letter from the First Minister.

It seems to me that as we translate the Smith recommendations—which Lord Smith says in his own report will have to be translated into practical detail as a consequence of the headline commitments that have been put into the agreement—that should be done in a spirit of openness and transparency. It should also be done in the spirit of efficiency, because it would be a much more effective way of taking that forward. What on earth is objectionable about such a proposition?

Secondly—and I hope that I might have some common ground with Ruth Davidson here; after all, it is why I intervened on her—our amendment

“looks for early action from both governments on implementation where possible and especially to allow the Parliament to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 Scottish election”.

Ruth Davidson has accepted—indeed, she is committed to this—that there is an argument for taking steps outside a substantive piece of UK legislation to legislate to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 election. If we wait for the substantive UK legislation on this subject, that cannot happen. If we want it to happen, and I know that everyone in the chamber wants that to be the case, we need early action. There is unanimity in this Parliament on that point, and it seems to me from what the Secretary of State for Scotland told the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee last Thursday that the UK Government sees the argument for such a move.

I cannot for the life of me understand why there has been no reciprocal commitment to get on with legislating or taking forward actions that do not have to wait for substantive UK legislation. For example, the Calman commission recommended the devolution of air passenger duty back in 2010, and the Scotland Act 2012 contains a mechanism for devolving that power to the Scottish Parliament without the need for substantive legislation by the UK Parliament. I cannot for the life of me understand why that opportunity is not being seized to take the agenda forward and to devolve these responsibilities as quickly as possible.

In that respect, I was heartened by the comments that were made in a letter released just yesterday from Margaret Curran, the shadow secretary of state for Scotland, to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In that letter, she sets out a variety of areas on which she pledges that the Labour Party is willing to co-operate to advance these matters. After talking about votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, she says:

“I would also like to meet with you before Christmas to discuss what other proposals made by the Smith Commission may not require primary legislation and what powers we could seek to devolve through Section 30 orders.”

That appears to me to be a point in the process where the Labour Party has quite generously said, “Let’s get on with taking the steps. Why wait for the comprehensive piece of legislation?” Ruth Davidson concluded her speech with the great clarion call to get on with it. I want to get on with it.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Perhaps Mr Brown will explain why the Conservatives are not prepared to get on with it.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Let us just assume for a moment that APD was devolved tomorrow. What would the cabinet secretary do with it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let us go back to the white paper, which said that we would halve APD. We would halve it over time before 2020 and then move to abolish it. That is taking the matter in stages. What Ruth Davidson says is, “Let’s do one thing—let’s devolve the power for 16 and 17-year-olds and do nothing else.”

Let us look at other provisions, such as the work programme. We all sat in the Smith commission and signed up to words in the document that say that we will devolve the work programme at the end of the current contract. Having done that, we found out that the UK Government is negotiating with the work programme contractors to extend the contract.

I hear Mr Johnstone saying that it is still the same contract. He will understand why I am just a little uneasy about the degree to which that represents good faith. We sat in the Smith commission and I signed up to a commitment to devolve the work programme at the end of the current contract. I am not seeking to escape from that, but we now find that the contract is being extended. That is happening at a time when there appears to be no willingness to extend the early devolution of responsibilities beyond the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds voting, on which we are delighted to co-operate with the United Kingdom Government.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Is the cabinet secretary as disappointed as I am to have heard that Iain Duncan Smith has already said that he is not prepared to change his mind with regard to the work programme?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That is a point to be regretted. However, the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear in his meeting with the First Minister last Thursday that he would make representations within the United Kingdom Government to determine whether something different could be done to change Mr Duncan Smith’s mind has given me hope. I hope that that is successful.

The third difference between the Government’s amendment and the Conservative motion is the last part of that amendment, which proposes that the Parliament

“welcomes the contribution of stakeholders and the public to the work of the commission, and recognises the need for continuing meaningful public consultation and engagement to ensure the credibility of the process in Scotland.”

That is important for the very simple reason—I think that I went through this in my reply to Miss Goldie after my statement on the Smith commission report last week—that a whole host of organisations made their submissions in good faith to the Smith commission on what they would like to be devolved and they have not had those wishes fulfilled in what the Smith commission concluded. It is now important that we engage constructively and actively with the stakeholder community in Scotland to ensure that we properly reflect its concerns and aspirations as we take forward the legislation.

Those are the reasons why the Government has taken the stance that we have taken. However, there is one other point that I want to make. We have covered some of this already. The Conservatives quite understandably want to move the debate on to what we would do with the powers. I am, of course, very happy to debate and discuss what we would do with them, but there is a stage before we get to that: the implementation of those powers. There is the actual translation of all the agreement into legislative form.

It would be a sign of good faith if the United Kingdom Government was prepared to engage constructively about early implementation of the provisions. To say to people in the referendum, “Look you can vote no and you will get change quicker than you’ll get Scottish independence” and everyone was—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Do I have enough time, Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You can take the intervention if you want to.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In that case, I will happily give way to Mr Johnstone.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary recognise the irony in the fact that, having first told the world that the UK Government would not stick to the timescales that had been put in place, the Scottish Government—now that it has become obvious that the schedule will be stuck to—is complaining about the provisions not being brought forward in that schedule?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I was coming on to make the point that the fact that, during the referendum, people were told that if they voted no they would get those powers quicker than they would Scottish independence. Everyone was broadly agreed that, if Scotland had voted yes, Scotland would have been heading for independence in March 2016—[Interruption.] That was a commonly accepted view.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in his last minute.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Macdonald will have to forgive me; I will give way to him in my closing speech.

That was such a seminal comment—Gordon Brown came along and said, “You won’t have to wait until March 2016; we’ll deliver these powers even earlier.” What are we now finding that the United Kingdom Government and certainly the Conservative Party are saying? I hope to hear from the Labour Party a reaffirmation of what Margaret Curran said in her letter to the Secretary of State of Scotland. We should be getting on with the job of implementing the powers as soon as we possibly can, and the Scottish Government will press the UK Government to deliver exactly that.

I move amendment S4M-11830.2, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert:

“welcomes the agreement of all five parties to devolve further powers to the Parliament; calls on both governments to produce draft clauses for the recommendations jointly to maintain this agreement; looks for early action from both governments on implementation where possible and especially to allow the Parliament to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 Scottish election; welcomes the contribution of stakeholders and the public to the work of the commission, and recognises the need for continuing meaningful public consultation and engagement to ensure the credibility of the process in Scotland.”

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I want us to move on from endlessly discussing process to the things that do not have to wait, as Mr Swinney very rightly said. Many things can be done; indeed, that is what my amendment says.

Over the past seven years, the Scottish Government has stripped power away from local authorities and communities and has ruthlessly centralised decisions in order to create the trappings of power and state here in Edinburgh. Each and every part of Scotland has lost out because of that approach. The judgments of local people have been overridden by an ever-mightier central Government. From the northern isles to the Highlands and right down to the Borders, communities have been stripped of control of the local services that they need. Local councils have their funding and their taxes determined not by the town halls but by the Scottish Government. We want something rather different from that.

Around 60 front-line police stations across Scotland have closed their doors to the public under the Scottish Government. New police tactics are being imposed on communities by the centralised national Police Scotland, and armed police have been routinely patrolling even the smallest villages and towns. Courts of justice have been closed across Scotland on the say-so of a handful of MSPs sitting in this Parliament. Decisions on major improvements to hospitals and health services have been taken out of the hands of local health boards and centralised in Edinburgh. Colleges have been forced to merge and cut their local ties. A single board now runs the whole fire and rescue service for the whole country, thereby losing local knowledge in the process.

Scottish Enterprise has been reorganised by the SNP so that decisions are taken at its national headquarters in Glasgow rather than, as used to happen, across Scotland. The Crofting Commission may be amalgamated with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission Scotland.

Liberal Democrats want a different approach to devolution from the one that we have in Scotland. We believe that people can be trusted with more, not fewer, powers to shape their areas. Local people are best placed to make decisions about the services that affect them, rather than all the decisions being taken in Edinburgh.

The SNP promised time and again as it centralised that services would be flexible and responsive to local needs. People know that that has not been the case. Now our calls for local devolution are not alone. As Lord Smith reflected:

“There is a strong desire to see the principle of devolution extended further, with the transfer of powers from Holyrood to local communities.”

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does Tavish Scott distinguish between local communities and authorities? In some cases, devolution needs to go below the city council or local council level.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Yes, I do. Mr Mason has made a perfectly fair observation. In a constituency such as his I suspect that there would be a different perspective from what would be the perspective in mine, given the size of the local authority that he no doubt deals with day to day.

The cabinet secretary today, but also in the previous discussions and statements that we have had on the Smith agreement, cited civic Scotland. Let me cite a few of civic Scotland’s observations as well. In its submission, Scottish Borders Council told the Smith commission that there is a

“pressing need for the decentralisation of powers from the Scottish Parliament to local authorities.”

The Scottish Association for Public Transport noted that the basis of devolution is that

“decisions about Scotland are best taken ... close to the people they affect and with their participation and consent.”

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said:

“Scottish political parties should commit to decentralising new and existing devolved powers even further to people and communities wherever possible.”

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will Tavish Scott give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I ask Bruce Crawford to let me finish these quotations. I will then be happy to give way.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—an organisation that I am sure Mr Crawford has high regard for—believes that,

“In the spirit of devolution, consideration should be given as to whether the Scottish Parliament should cascade appropriate powers and responsibility down to local authorities.”

As Mr Crawford is a great advocate of local authorities, I am sure that he would agree with that.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I have listened carefully to the points that Tavish Scott is making. Most of them are about process, which he criticised John Swinney for talking about. Given our existing powers, can he give specific examples of ideas that the Liberal Democrats have for transfer of powers to local government?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would never have centralised the police force and I would make sure the councillors in my part of Scotland were looking after the police again. Mr Crawford’s party took that away from them. If he wants one example, I would end what he did with the national police force, because that was a terrible decision and a Government in the future will reverse it.

The Electoral Reform Society Scotland believes that

“citizens should be able to shape the decisions that affect their lives”

and that

“our institutions should reflect the people they serve”.

I have heard much about listening to the case that civic Scotland and those kinds of organisations made to the Smith commission. It strikes me that the Government should heed that.

On the Crown Estate, it is not enough that this Parliament has control. As my amendment makes clear,

“responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets and the revenue generated ... should be devolved to local authority areas”

such as Shetland and Orkney, as the Smith commission agreement says. I hope that the SNP will not block that but, rather, will make it happen as the agreement says.

I finish by touching on financial scrutiny of the Scottish Government. This is a highly centralised state, and for that reason I have argued before for a tartan office for budget responsibility. The UK Government got it right: it divorced economic and financial forecasting, which can be manipulated by politicians from central Government, and it established the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR is no friend of any UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and it is not meant to be. It provides an independent assessment of the nation’s books, and not just for the Government but for all representatives and policy makers—indeed, for every member in this chamber.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Will you draw to a close, please?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No such emphatic independent assessment is made of the Scottish Government’s financial performance. The fiscal commission is not independent, but it should and must be. If Mr Swinney wants early action, which he called for in his remarks to the Parliament this afternoon, how about starting with the fiscal commission?

I move amendment S4M-11830.1, to insert after “these powers”:

“; notes the comment made by Lord Smith that ‘there is a strong desire to see the principle of devolution extended further, with the transfer of powers from Holyrood to local communities’; believes that, having persistently centralised services over the last seven years, the Scottish Government must fully devolve powers in Scotland in a manner that is consistent with the recommendations of the Smith Commission agreement; considers that responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets and the revenue generated from these should be devolved to local authority areas such as Orkney, Shetland and Na h-Eileanan Siar following the transfer of these powers to the Parliament as detailed in sections 32 and 33 of the Smith Commission report,”.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

The Smith agreement comes at the culmination of an unprecedented debate about how our country is run and it fulfils our promise on both the substance of and the timetable for further devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament. The referendum three months ago settled the question of Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland instructed all of us to make devolution work, with a stronger Scottish Parliament and a stronger partnership across the United Kingdom. That is what members on this side campaigned for and we believe that Lord Smith and the party nominees on his commission should be congratulated on delivering this extensive package of powers. We therefore support the motion.

In addition to having spending powers over health, housing, education, justice, enterprise and many other areas, this Parliament now stands ready to take much greater responsibility for taxation, linking more effectively the money that Government has to spend and the performance of our economy. On welfare, it means that decisions on how best to support our people into work will be taken by those with the greatest understanding of the real labour market in every part of Scotland. Training for work should reflect the jobs that can be created, just as efforts to boost jobs should reflect our most vital asset: the skills of our people.

We can also join up policy in health and housing and work with extensive powers over disability and other welfare benefits. For the first time, the Scottish Government will have the power to create new benefits or make top-up payments and, with more flexible taxation powers, the choice over whether to do that and how to fund it will now be a real one. No longer will it be good enough for Scottish ministers to complain about other people’s decisions without being willing to take action themselves.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

On top-up powers on welfare, in particular, does the member agree that it would be wrong if the proposals in the Smith commission’s report led to a situation in which, if the Scottish Government chose to top up, universal credit would be reduced?

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I think that the secretary of state made that point to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, in response to Bruce Crawford’s questions. I am aware of Bruce Crawford’s concern about the issue and I hope that it can be taken forward in the discussions that the secretary of state said would take place.

The Smith agreement is a strong and ambitious extension of this Parliament’s powers. That is why we signed it and that is why the next Labour Government is committed to implementing it in a new Scotland act in our first Queen’s speech—or even quicker, on issues that do not require legislation, as the Deputy First Minister said. As Margaret Curran indicated, we are happy to have that conversation.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Smith said that he supports the motion. Does he also support our amendment, which makes exactly that point?

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

The Deputy First Minister described Margaret Curran’s remarks on the matter yesterday as generous, and her remarks stand. I will come on to the Government amendment shortly.

Our modern Scottish Parliament is firmly entrenched in our national life and it is right that its maturity should now be recognised by giving it control over its elections. During the progress of new legislation in that regard, it is right that the Scottish Parliament should work in partnership with the UK Parliament, just as happened with the Scotland Bill. We believe that the process that was used then should apply now.

It is a simple fact that the bill will be introduced in the UK Parliament by the UK Government. We all expect the UK Government and Parliament to act in the spirit of the agreement, and I say to the Scottish Government that we should not seek an unnecessary grievance on an issue of process before the ink is even dry.

People who held the minority view in September are entitled to continue to make their case for Scotland leaving the UK but, in doing so, they need to accept that strengthened and effective devolution is the position that most Scots support and around which even more Scots can unite.

When the full scope of the Smith agreement is implemented, our Parliament will be one of the most powerful devolved legislatures anywhere in the world. Labour likes that. We will always defend this Parliament, which we were proud to bring into being, and we will make the case for even greater devolution, beyond Edinburgh and to every community in Scotland. We will make the case for reforming the way in which the whole UK is governed, with a constitutional convention for all Britain, devolution for every part of the UK that wants to take decisions closer to home, and abolition of the House of Lords, which would be replaced by an elected senate.

Constitutional change might not be what motivates the Labour Party, but our record and our ambition make clear our commitment. Powers should be exercised in the interests of the people and at the level at which the people’s voice is most easily heard. We should pool and share risk and resources where it is in Scotland’s interests to work with our closest neighbours, we should take responsibility for ourselves where we can make a difference, and we should devolve power away from the centre, so that local government becomes more than just local administration.

The parties came together to make the Smith agreement, but we will all put our own cases as to how power should be exercised. Labour would use new powers to ensure that the people who have most pay a fair rate of tax; that is why we support the reinstatement of a 50p tax rate. We would reform the work programme to make it respond to the needs of regional economies in Scotland. Having placed double devolution at the heart of the debate, we will stand by our commitment not just to Scotland’s cities but to Scotland’s islands. We therefore support the amendment in Tavish Scott’s name.

It is worth remembering the drivers behind the Smith process. Throughout and before the referendum, Scottish Labour argued that our alternative to a separate Scotland was a stronger Scotland. That position was continually attacked by people who have always looked for faults in devolution and denied its strengths.

That is why we made a promise to come together with others and discuss our ideas, with a timetable set out in advance. We knew that we would have to compromise, and we have done. We knew that it would be a challenge to meet the timetable, but we proceeded in good faith at all times. In 1997, Labour promised a Scottish Parliament, and we had set up the Parliament by 1999. We initiated the Calman process, and devolution has been strengthened. In 2014, we published “Powers for a purpose: Strengthening Accountability and Empowering People”, and we vowed to work with others to deliver a powerhouse Parliament. When Lord Smith was appointed to his commission, a promise had been made; when we signed the Smith agreement, that became a promise kept.

This year, 2014, has been a momentous year for Scotland. It is the year in which Scotland rejected independence and endorsed partnership. It is the year in which the parties agreed on further powers. To 2016 and beyond, the challenge is not constitutional but political. The greatest test of political will is not the collection of tools for the toolbox but the good to which we put the tools that we have to work.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. We are very tight for time, so I ask for five-minute speeches please. I call Lindy Ann—sorry, Linda Fabiani—first and Lewis Macdonald will follow thereafter.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I have been called many a name in my day, Presiding Officer, but that is a completely new one.

I start by looking at some of the myths that surround the Smith commission. I do not mean the myths that the vow was delivered, that extensive powers are likely to come or that we will get home rule or as near federalism as is possible. I mean some of the other myths that are doing the rounds.

The first of those myths is that the potential transfer of powers will make this one of the most powerful non-sovereign Parliaments in the world. I do not buy that at all. Members are waving around SPICe briefings and quoting from them, but perhaps they should read the footnotes as well as the charts. For example, some countries such as Canada and Spain have differing levels of decentralisation to sub-central governments and they are not reflected in the charts, so regional differences in places such as Spain and Canada are not always taken into account. The Basque Country, for example, raises all taxes and pays Madrid as the centre for services. That seems to be a much more powerful position to be in than depending on a grant for most of our income.

The second myth is that powers are already here. There seems to be an assumption that the Scottish Parliament has all the powers. I have heard it outside the chamber and I have even heard it in here, but we do not. We hope that the powers will all come. Drew Smith said that it is a fact that they will come. He might have total faith in his party should it win the UK general election. It is also touching to see that he has faith in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the UK Independence Party. The powers are not already here, but let us hope that they will wend their way here through the Westminster process.

The third myth is that the SNP agreed with everything that was in the Smith commission and that it was the best for Scotland. Negotiations were entered into in good faith by all concerned. That does not mean that the premise that was agreed is necessarily the best for Scotland. It is the product of negotiation, discussion and agreement. As many have said, politics is the art of the possible.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Can the member confirm that the SNP signed the final agreement? [Laughter.]

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I was about to say that those who espouse that view are either naive, disingenuous or a bit daft; folk can make up their own minds about that.

The reality is that we are where we are, and we welcome the new powers as we support all progress for Scotland. However, we are disappointed at the lack of cohesion. For example, we have the work programme to help people into jobs but not job-creating powers. We have powers over some benefits to assist disabled people, but not the power to halt the absolutely shameful work capability assessments that cause such stress to many people who have disabilities.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

No, thank you.

Additional powers are welcome, but I do not believe that control of less than 30 per cent of Scotland’s tax take and less than 20 per cent of welfare is extensive. It is disappointing.

The Scottish Government in the shape of John Swinney and the SNP in the shape of myself entered into negotiations in good faith. The on-going discussions will, I hope, also take place in good faith. I have some worries about that following last week’s appearance at the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We talked about the work programme and I pointed out that it is not working particularly well for Scotland. I do not think that anyone will disagree with that; certainly in all its submissions, civic Scotland agreed with that. With control, we could use it much more effectively. We owe it to our client group to do that.

We were told by the secretary of state that the commercial providers of the work programme have already been granted an extension until 2017.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please draw to a close.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I believe that that is not in good faith. I have since heard that they are now negotiating to take it up to 2019. That is disappointing and I do not believe that it is in good faith. I ask for clarification on what is happening from the Conservatives and from the Liberal Democrats, because the Secretary of State for Scotland is a Liberal Democrat.

Let us look to get early responses to some of the issues. The work programme is one of the most important of all.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Smith agreement marks another significant stage in the progress of Scotland’s devolved Parliament. For Scottish Labour, the enactment of the agreement will be another historic step on the road to a political settlement that is fit for purpose in a modern social democratic Scotland.

It was another Smith—John Smith—who said that devolution was

“the settled will of the Scottish people”.

He could not have known how that will would be tested 20 years after his death, but he would have been pleased that Scotland has emerged from that test with devolution strengthened, not cast aside.

Just as famously, Donald Dewar said that devolution was a process, not an event. He could not have known how that process would go forward, but he knew that the Scottish Constitutional Convention marked the beginning of a debate, rather than the last word in an argument. His vision, which brought us to this place, was not of fixed powers or settled institutions, but of a dynamic process of change that would evolve, mature and develop.

Nor was Donald Dewar’s vision just about Scottish devolution. It was also about a reinvented United Kingdom with a devolved Scotland at its heart. The Smith agreement helps to advance that reinvention of the union, as well as the powers and responsibilities of this Scottish Parliament.

Not all the signatories to the Smith agreement are committed to a stronger union, any more than they were when they joined the campaign in support of the original Scotland Bill in 1997. However, John Swinney was explicit in his evidence to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee last week that signing the Smith agreement committed him to

“endorse its contents and ... work in good faith to implement them”—[Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 4 December 2014; c 27.]

and that is a commitment that all members of all signatory parties should seek to deliver.

For those of us who support the devolution agenda in its own right, this next step is not just about additional powers for a devolved Parliament—important though that is. It is about reaching a new balance among the member countries of this United Kingdom. If John Smith and Donald Dewar made the case a generation ago for devolution to strengthen the union, it is important to restate that case today.

Rebalancing the union means reforming Westminster, of course. The union Parliament must be fit for purpose in the 21st century, and a future UK constitutional convention must have that topic high on its agenda. When some in Ruth Davidson’s party propose that Westminster should be something other than the union Parliament they are in danger of undermining the union itself, however inadvertently.

In October, William Hague led a debate on devolution following the Scotland referendum, which turned out to be about

“English votes for English laws”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 14 October 2014; Vol 586, c 180.]

at Westminster and not about devolution of legislation for England from Westminster. When Mr Hague was challenged about where he might find cross-party support for those proposals, the one example that he offered was that of the SNP. That is telling in itself.

If the United Kingdom is to evolve in future as a union of equal partners, Westminster cannot be both the English Parliament and the union Parliament at the same time.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

As Lewis Macdonald knows, our members do not take part in a vote at Westminster if it is on a subject such as health. Does he not think that it is morally wrong that Scottish Labour MPs take part in such votes?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, I do not. John Mason comes to my aid as a witness, to prove that indeed English votes for English laws is not a proposition that is compatible with a strong United Kingdom.

A modern union Parliament should reflect all parts of the union, both through a House of Commons that is directly elected by all UK citizens on an equal basis and through a second chamber representing the nations and regions of the UK. Devolution to cities and regions within England will be important there, just as double devolution to Scotland’s cities, regions and islands will be important here.

The devolution of power in England must be devolution from Westminster, just as it has been in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since 1997. Once it is started, devolution in England will no doubt evolve further, as it has done in the other countries of the United Kingdom.

Those issues will be resolved elsewhere, but they set the context for the Scotland bill, which will come to this Parliament for consideration in the course of the next 12 months or so. Responsibility for bringing forward that proposed legislation clearly lies with the Government of the United Kingdom, and specifically with the Scotland Office, as Alistair Carmichael told the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee last week.

It is not for Mr Swinney to invite himself to join in with drafting UK legislation, but that legislation has to deliver on the Smith agreements, and I hope that it will attract the support of all parties. I hope that it will deliver on the vision of John Smith and Donald Dewar, and on the vote of the Scottish people in September, by strengthening both the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

One of the points that we discussed at the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee last Thursday related to translating Smith into practical reality. One of the points that was made was about the extension of the scope of responsibilities on the Crown Estate to 200 miles. Does Mr Macdonald believe that to be inherent in the Smith commission report?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

The discussions that we had at the committee last week point the way forward to how we can work together across different Parliaments and also with local government on the devolution of the Crown Estate among other things.

However, the proposition that Governments should work together to advise the process is a very different thing from Governments working together on the process itself. Mr Swinney should recognise that the opportunity will arise for all of us when the Scotland bill comes here next year. All members of the Parliament will be offered the opportunity then to say whether that bill is fit for purpose.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Presiding Officer,

“Whilst there are certainly positive elements in these proposals, we are underwhelmed by the package as a whole which does not meet our aspirations.”

That was from Grahame Smith, general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

“Other equalities organisations also called for equality law to be devolved, and we are disappointed that only one small transfer of powers is recommended, to enable gender quotas on the boards of public bodies.”

That was from Engender Scotland.

“We’ve said all along that anything less than wholesale devolution of welfare would be a real missed opportunity to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people in our communities, so we are disappointed to see that today’s offerings fall far short of this.”

That was from John Downie of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

“does this really allow Scotland to design its own economic and social policies and to diverge significantly from what is happening in England? Not very much.”

That was from Professor Michael Keating.

“The recommendations of the Smith Commission do not go as far as we – and many other civic organisations – had called for in our submissions”.

That was from Mary Taylor, chief executive officer of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

“We are disappointed that the Smith Commission failed to devolve all welfare and more fiscal powers to Scotland. We consulted with hundreds of disabled people and their near unanimous view was that we needed Devo Max including the devolution of all welfare benefits.”

That was from Bill Scott of Inclusion Scotland.

“I think that in the longer term everybody involved may come to regret putting all the eggs in the income tax basket rather than looking at a spread of taxes.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2014; Vol 757, c 1049.]

That was from Lord McConnell, the former First Minister.

To negate the view that is being put out that the disappointment about the conclusions of the Smith commission is somehow confined to the Scottish National Party, that was a range of quotations from representatives of organisations, most of which—other than Lord McConnell, who was an active campaigner for a no vote—took an avowedly neutral stance on the referendum, but nonetheless put across extremely strong views—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

What!

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Tavish Scott scoffs at the notion of civic Scotland taking a neutral stance during the referendum campaign. I was very disappointed to see him besmirch—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the member give way?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

No, thank you.

Members: Oh!

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Order, please.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I have only five minutes, and Tavish Scott has the opportunity to sum up on his amendment. He can deal with the matter in his winding-up speech.

Those organisations did indeed look for strong powers from the Smith commission, which they did not find in its report.

We have considered the issue of early transfer of powers, which was explored during the deliberations of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee. There is an opportunity to disaggregate some of the powers, and Scotland’s airports have called for powers over air passenger duty to come as soon as possible. I welcome the view that appears to be coming from the Labour Party, that that could be pursued. We could work constructively on that.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I very much hope that we can.

Mr McDonald listed views from civic Scotland. Will he quote any such views on what the Scottish Government describes as job-creating powers? Most, if not all, of those organisations describe that as dangerous tax competition.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

It is interesting: Mr Smith appears to suggest that we should listen to people only when they say that we should not devolve something to this Parliament. [Laughter.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Let me explain that further. This Parliament is receiving powers around welfare and taxation. The question is to do with whether there is a coherence to those powers and how they can be applied in Scotland. Mr Smith suggests that there is a difference between us in our views on devolution. I suggest that the difference between us is not that I am ignorant of the strengths of devolution, but that he is ignorant of the limitations of devolution and has consistently been so. Time after time in this chamber, we hear the Labour Party put the onus on the Scottish Government to react to bad decisions that are made elsewhere and to use the devolved settlement to address the issues.

Some welfare powers will come to this Parliament but, at the same time, some welfare powers will remain reserved. At the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, Mr Crawford raised the topic of welfare powers in the context of a paper that SPICe had prepared. Again, it is interesting that, much like members’ different views around the quality of submissions from civic Scotland, we have different views when it comes to listening to what SPICe says. SPICe itself has said that there is the potential for top-ups to reserved benefits or other decisions taken through devolved benefits to have an impact on the receipt of universal credit, which goes against the points that are outlined in paragraph 55 of the Smith commission report.

When we talk about the ability to create new benefits, for example, or to fund top-ups—Drew Smith said that we will have the powers to do that—we must remember that only a limited number of tax powers will be made available to this Parliament. I accept that that will require decisions to be taken, and I am sure that Drew Smith—when he sees top-ups being required or new benefits being created—will make proposals of his own on how those would be funded within the settlement. In essence, income tax is the only lever that can be used to generate such significant funding, unless we were to see significant increases through the assignment of revenue from VAT. However, I think we would all agree that that will not happen straight away, especially when we do not have those job-creating powers.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Could you draw to a close, please?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Gavin Brown’s intervention on Mr Swinney summed up rather neatly the whole problem in this process. He asked Mr Swinney what he would do with the power if he had it. [Laughter.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please. We must hear the member conclude.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

It is very simple. The principle is not about what an individual political party would do with the power; the principle is around whether the power should rest in the hands of the Parliament of Scotland. If all that people are going to do is say, “You can’t have this power because you won’t use it the way we want to use it,” they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that I must now ask members to keep to their five minutes. We have run out of the little spare time that we had.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If there is one thing that is in absolutely no doubt in this debate, it is that the Smith commission has more than delivered on the vow that was signed by the three UK party leaders. For the avoidance of doubt, let us remind ourselves what it said. It stated that

“the Scottish Parliament is permanent, and extensive new powers for the parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19th September”.

Members on the SNP benches should note that there was no mention of devo max, no mention of home rule, and no mention of federalism.

By any measure, the Smith commission proposals represent extensive new powers over taxation, welfare, elections, the Crown Estate, transport, consumer protection, employment programmes, fuel poverty programmes, rights to fracking and much, much more.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. Let me make some progress.

Just so that we are clear, I say that the additional tax powers will mean that the Scottish Parliament will raise, as a percentage of total tax revenue, more than subnational Governments in Greece, Portugal, Ireland, France, Italy, Norway, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and Spain. It will also raise more than states in federal countries including the US, Germany, and Australia. That is an extensive set of powers.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank Murdo Fraser for giving way. Does he accept that this Parliament, even after the Smith commission proposals have been enacted, will be responsible only for 40 per cent of its revenue base? In what way is that “extensive”?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that Jim Eadie will find from the Scottish Parliament information centre that the figure is more than 50 per cent. That puts us near the top of all the devolved subnational Governments in the western world.

Let us be in no doubt. When the SNP decries the powers that have been proposed by the Smith commission and claims that they are not extensive, it is simply misrepresenting the position and trying to con the public into thinking that what is proposed is insignificant. One thing that we could have predicted with 100 per cent accuracy before the Smith commission published its proposals was that the SNP would say that the proposals are not enough. True to form, that is exactly what the SNP is now saying, and it is ignoring the international evidence on how extensive the powers are in relation to those in other countries.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Will Murdo Fraser take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I need to make some progress.

I understand that the SNP wanted independence, but that is precisely what the Scottish people rejected not three months ago by a comprehensive margin. Short of that, the SNP now says that it wants devo max which, as the SNP defines it, is essentially independence by another name and does not exist, along the lines that the SNP proposes, in a single federal country anywhere in the world.

We need to move on from talking about what further powers the Scottish Parliament might have to discussing what we are actually going to do with the powers that we currently have, and with those that are to be devolved, to build the stronger Scotland that we all want.

Last week, I spoke in the chamber about air passenger duty. For years, we have had to listen to SNP members in the chamber, in committee and on public platforms demanding devolution of air passenger duty and decrying its negative impact on Scottish tourism. It is now time for the SNP to tell us what it wants to do with that tax, which is being devolved. In the white paper we were told that in the event of a yes vote APD would be cut by 50 per cent within the next Parliamentary session. That could have been at any point in the next six years—and, of course, people voted no. What is now to happen to APD? If it is as bad a tax as the SNP has claimed in the past, will the Government move quickly to cut or eliminate it? The SNP needs to tell us. There was no clarity at all on the issue from John Swinney when he was questioned by Gavin Brown earlier in the debate.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in his last minute.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On land and buildings transaction tax, the Scottish Government brought forward its proposals, which were gazumped by the chancellor last week. Many Scottish house buyers will be put at a competitive disadvantage come April, unless the Scottish Government has a rethink. Let us hear what it is going to do about that.

We also need to know what the Scottish Government proposes for income tax. The First Minister has hinted that there might be an increase in the top rate. That is a political choice that she and her party are free to make, but they need to be careful. There are some 13,000 individuals in Scotland paying the top rate of tax, very many of whom work cross-border with a base in London or elsewhere, as well as in Scotland. It will not take much for them to relocate their tax residency elsewhere, so an increase in the top rate of tax might well lead to a fall in the tax take.

Those are the debates that I am looking forward to having in the chamber. All parties can set out their ideas on taxation and welfare spending. Some will argue for higher taxes, and some will argue for lower taxes. The Smith commission allows us to have the proper rounded political debate that we have been missing for the past 15 years, and in which politicians in this Parliament will be properly financially accountable for their decisions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must finish.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We need to move on from talking about the constitution. People in Scotland had their say on September 18, and it is now time to make devolution work better and to build a grown-up Parliament for grown-up politicians.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that I have to give fair warning that I will need to cut members’ microphones off at five minutes.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I begin by commenting briefly on the vow. It was produced late in the day and was imprecisely defined—it was designed to be so, in my view——but we should look at it in context.

On 8 September, in Loanhead, Gordon Brown called for a modern form of Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom, having said previously that if Scotland voted no it would receive powers that would be as near to federalism as possible in a nation where one part forms 85 per cent of the population.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Campbell, can you lift your microphone up, please? Is it on?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I hope so. Yes.

Whatever the vow was meant to mean, the Smith recommendations can in no sense be construed as giving to Scotland the minimum that I believe the majority of Scotland now wants. The Smith outcome is not, in my view, what any self-respecting federal state would look like.

I mean no disrespect to Murdo Fraser and his references to elsewhere, but in Canada, as Iain Macwhirter points out in his new book, federal provinces are constitutionally able to tax anything that they want to tax except international and internal trade, and to set their own rates. In that context, Smith is a disappointment.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will Roderick Campbell take an intervention?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

Time is tight.

When we look at the Smith outcome, it is easy to see the shortcomings on tax: not just on corporation tax and on oil and petroleum tax, but on taxes including inheritance tax and capital gains tax, which remain at Westminster. In that, the proposals do not meet the aspirations on tax not only of the STUC but even of the Liberal Democrats. James Mitchell, who is an independent commentator, has pointed out that although the Lib Dems maintain that Smith offers home rule and have long campaigned for home rule, it looks little like the set-up that was proposed by two previous commissions.

Let us look at what other organisations said in framing their submissions to Smith. On tax and national insurance, Unison backed devolution of national insurance because

“the link with contributory benefits is becoming increasingly weak and government needs to see the full impact of their taxation policy on people’s incomes.”

Only two taxes—APD and the aggregates levy—are to be devolved in full, and that was proposed by Calman, so maybe Smith is not quite as radical as has been suggested today.

As the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations pointed out in its submission to Lord Smith, having powers over a diverse range of taxes seems to be an appropriate and balanced approach.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will Roderick Campbell give way?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

Time is tight.

Of course, the Campbell commission said nothing on welfare, but the Liberals finally embraced, with other unionist parties, proposals that will give control of a very modest 15 per cent of the welfare budget. However, my understanding is that the weekend before the commission produced its report, the Liberals, at their conference in Dunfermline, did a U-turn on their previous position—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will Roderick Campbell give way this time?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

Let me finish the point, then I will give way.

According to a report in Scotland on Sunday, the Liberals did a U-turn from their previous position to a position of support for major welfare powers to be devolved, or a “major package” of welfare powers, according to a Lib Dem website.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Could Mr Campbell dredge up anything that is good about the Smith agreement?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

No. [Laughter.] The agreement is obviously a step forward.

In relation to welfare, the point remains that, if we take the personal independence payment out of the equation, we are left with just 6 per cent of the total social security budget being transferred, which I suggest is very modest indeed.

The national carer organisations argued in their submission to Smith that in order to avoid complexity for complaints and the cost of managing two systems

“it would appear to make sense to devolve the full range of welfare powers”.

For just a short moment in the week before Smith reported, unionists seemed to be moving in that direction until, it appears, the London masters said no.

The minimum wage will, of course, remain reserved. As the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland has pointed out, key levers for tackling poverty—the minimum wage, child benefit and wider economic and fiscal powers—will remain at Westminster.

To echo the expert working group on welfare and constitutional reform, I say that powers should be considered in tandem with other fiscal powers, such as the ability to create a fair tax base, greater borrowing flexibility and the ability to make greater investment and to create jobs, which would allow Scotland greater control of the factors in the labour market and the economy, such as employment rates, that affect and impact on welfare issues.

Paragraph 60 of Smith states:

“The Equality Act 2010 will remain reserved.”

Although gender quotas are, rightly, coming this Parliament’s way as Mark McDonald said, much more could have been done in that regard.

On immigration, partial devolution of power might have enabled the Scottish Parliament to reintroduce a two-year post-study work visa, which has been called for not only by the National Union of Students Scotland but by those august organisations the Institute of Directors and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, among others. The SCDI’s view was that, without the visa, the economy will be undermined by continuing problems in attracting necessary talent. Again, the experience in federal Canada is instructive. I accept that, in paragraph 96, there is reference to that as an additional issue that could be considered, but we need quickly to turn that into reality.

We need to put in place the agreed recommendations at the earliest opportunity, not only in relation to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds but generally.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

There can be no doubt that, compared with the set of powers that were devolved to the Scottish Parliament when it first sat in 1999, the Smith agreement sets out a much more substantial step forward on tax and welfare. The set of powers presents opportunities for us to make a difference in relation to the issues that our communities throughout Scotland face.

A number of implications follow from the agreement. First, we will need to move on from the constitutional discussion. One of the unfortunate things about the debate is, surprisingly, that it is clear to me that the SNP has not moved on. I listened carefully to Mr Swinney, who was a bit like a lecturer at a seminar. We had 10 minutes of process and nothing about what the new powers could do to make a difference.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

Tell us.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I will tell you.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Mr Swinney and the SNP need to remember that we are elected to Parliament as politicians to represent our constituents and work on their behalf. When have the opportunity of substantially enhanced powers, it is incumbent on us to make those powers work and to make a difference.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does Mr Kelly accept that it is the Conservatives who, rather than choosing a subject that would enable us to debate what we can do, have chosen the constitution, because they are fixated on it?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

This debate gives us an opportunity to examine some of the issues that exist in Scotland and how we can use the powers to make a difference. For example, yesterday the Scottish public health observatory published a study into health inequalities in Scotland. It noted that the average life expectancy of a male in Drumchapel is 73 years, while three miles away in Bearsden it is 10 years more, at 83 years. Nobody in this chamber would find that acceptable. The study demonstrated that although changes in health policy will have an impact on that, the biggest impact will be through changes in tax and welfare—which are handed down by the Smith commission.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will James Kelly give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No. I am short of time.

One of the aspects that that study concentrated on was the living wage. SNP members have voted five times against extension of the living wage to public contracts. As well as examining the powers that are coming down the line, they should examine the powers that they currently have in order to make a difference to health inequalities.

Another issue that could be examined and developed is access to education. The SNP is always telling us about how we have free education in Scotland, but the reality on the ground is that someone who stays in Morningside has an eight in 10 chance of getting to university while someone in the poorer areas of Glasgow has only a one in 10 chance of doing so. Access to free education is very limited in some parts of our country. We should be looking to use the new powers to take the issues forward.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Will James Kelly give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

In addition to that, only yesterday statistics were published that show that nearly 1 million households are now in fuel poverty. Again, that is completely unacceptable in today’s Scotland and I am sure that no one in this chamber finds it acceptable.

The Smith agreement powers give us the opportunity to raise the top rate of tax to 50p and to introduce new benefits that could help in addressing access to education, health inequality issues and fuel poverty issues. That is what the debate should be about. People in Scotland are looking for us to move on. They are looking for leadership from this chamber and it is incumbent on all of us—including the SNP Government—to provide that leadership, to provide the ideas and to make a real difference, now that the constitutional debate has been resolved.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I want to start with a quotation from Lord Smith’s foreword to his report.

“Scotland voted ‘No’, but it did so with each of the three main UK parties promising more powers for the Scottish Parliament. I was asked to lead a Commission, working with the five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament, to agree what those new powers should be.”

The next part is the important part, for me.

“In doing so, I sought to give a voice to the public and the various organisations that make up the fabric of Scottish life.”

I believe that, from the start, it has failed in that regard. The five political parties had to sign a contract. Therefore, those signatures were signed on behalf of their political priorities and probably, in the case of the three unionist parties, based on what the Scottish branches were told that they could sign up to by their London headquarters. How do I know that? I will read out another quotation.

“At Tuesday’s cabinet, when Alistair Carmichael read out the plans taking shape at the Smith Commission table, one after another English Tory cabinet ministers challenged the plans and their implications for their brief and their department.

Theresa May was amongst them, George Osborne too. The Culture Secretary Sajid Javid even raised questions about a separate National Lottery for Scotland. But Iain Duncan Smith was said to have been the sharpest critic of what was being cooked up”—

those are the key words—

“in Scotland, fearing that his entire Universal Credit fabric was being unravelled.”

There were no discussions with the Scottish people; there were discussions down telephone lines to London.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will Christine Grahame give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I have only five minutes.

This de minimis offer cannot begin to match the compromise of devo max, which was prohibited from being on the ballot paper from day 1 by the unionist parties and surfaced only as an expeditious attempt to prevent independence. Even Murdo Fraser called it, in this chamber, the “so-called vow”, although I notice that he did not call it that today. Nick Clegg, however, prefers to call it “vow max” or “vow-plus-plus”. How far the Liberals and federalism have fallen.

The proposal is not even coherent—a key word that was used by Mark McDonald, and by Lord Smith in his summation. He asked for something substantial and coherent. We can argue about whether the proposal is substantial—the Opposition parties think that it is substantial; we do not—but it is definitely not coherent. One cannot touch one part of the benefits system without the whole of the benefits system being available. We cannot touch one tiny part of income tax without having the whole tax system available. What is proposed is destabilising. Had the unionist parties been astute—we know that they are not—they might have shot the independence fox for good, or at least wounded it very seriously, by devolving full tax and welfare powers to this Parliament, but they have done completely the opposite.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Christine Grahame give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is not giving way.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

In the referendum, 1.6 million of the Scottish people voted for the full whack, and 1.6 million is not a tiny minority—it is a substantial number of people. A substantial number also voted for devolution at the last minute, thinking that they were going to get something big, not a pig in a poke. The unionist parties have not satisfied them. How do I know that? [Interruption.] Listen to me.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.