Scottish Parliament, 25 March 2015

324 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Fair Work, Skills and Training

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time. In order to get in as many people as possible, I would prefer short and succinct questions, and answers to match.

Low Pay

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle low pay. (S4O-04154)

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

As Jackie Baillie will know by now, the Scottish Government has taken considerable measures in respect of its own pay policy, and Government employees are now all paid the living wage. Indeed, there was an extra support put in place for those who were earning less than £21,000 per annum.

The Scottish Government fully supports the living wage campaign, and we recognise the real difference that the living wage can make to the people of Scotland. I may say that this Government is the first and only Government in the United Kingdom to include the living wage in its pay policy.

We have funded the Poverty Alliance to increase the number of employers across all sectors in Scotland that are paying the living wage, and as of today we have surpassed the target that we had set ourselves of 150 living wage-accredited employers in Scotland. We have made further commitments in our programme for government, including to introduce a Scottish business pledge to make it clear that we want companies to commit, among other things, to paying the living wage and to fair work.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that Scottish Labour set up a low pay commission last week, because we are on a mission to abolish low pay and end exploitative zero-hours contracts. We also want to pay people the living wage in public sector contracts and more widely—something that the Scottish National Party voted against five times in this chamber.

The current Government promised a living wage summit, way back in September 2014. When will it happen?

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

A living wage summit is planned to take place before the recess. We also have the fair work convention, which will likely meet for the first time in April. It will include discussions about the living wage, but we will go further than that.

I am glad that I can welcome the Labour Party to the ranks of those who are now actively campaigning for the living wage. It is working hard to play catch-up with the Government, but we welcome all hands to the deck, so I am grateful to hear that commitment.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Forty-three thousand workers are engaged in public sector contracts but receive less than £7.85 an hour. What is the cabinet secretary with responsibility for fair work doing about that?

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

We are working within European Union law to tackle the issue of the living wage—[Interruption.] I hear the jeering that suggests that the Labour Party is not particularly interested in abiding by the law. Every single place where public bodies are being encouraged to promote the living wage quite clearly states that EU law will nevertheless take precedence in certain contracts. We are working extremely hard to work through that in terms of procurement policy.

We are also working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on improving the quality of care in Scotland, which means looking at the issue of fair work and the living wage in a sector that has traditionally not been particularly well remunerated. We are doing so, and we are doing it within the law. It does not matter how many times Labour members try to make an issue of that; the fact of the matter is that we are bound by the law, as they would be in government.

National Advisory Group on Developing the Young Workforce

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work of the national advisory group on developing the young workforce. (S4O-04155)

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

I chaired an excellent inaugural meeting of the developing the young workforce national advisory group last month. Its members heard from Sir Ian Wood about the ambitions set out in his report, “Developing the Young Workforce: Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy”, and from one another about their personal commitment to supporting young people into fulfilling jobs. We are now working with members to support their role in promoting what developing the young workforce can offer young people, teachers and employers.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response. In December last year, the cabinet secretary called for an apprentices’ minimum wage of more than £3 an hour. She will undoubtedly want to welcome the rise introduced by the UK Government to £3.30. What does the cabinet secretary plan to do to arrest the 34 per cent decline in science, technology, engineering and mathematics college places since her Government came into office, considering the importance of those places to our economy?

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

I am already on record as welcoming the increases that were made last week in the minimum wage. They do not go far enough, especially in respect of apprentices, which I have also made absolutely clear.

On college STEM places, the Government is working very hard with colleges, schools and employers to ensure that there is a big focus on STEM apprentices. Indeed, the Minister for Youth and Women’s Employment and I visit many employers who are actively looking to recruit. Just last week—perhaps the week before—we met training providers on the issue as well.

We have to move things along, but we are working hard to do so.

Academic and Vocational Education (Parity of Esteem)

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to achieve parity of esteem between academic and vocational education, as recommended by the commission for developing Scotland’s young workforce. (S4O-04156)

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

The ambition of “Developing the Young Workforce: Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy” is rooted in our vision that whether a young person’s route to work is academic or vocational as traditionally defined is not significant. Our strategy sets out activity based on a rich variety of high-quality learning opportunities that are linked to skills needs and employer demands and taken up by informed young people who make smart decisions about the best route to obtain fulfilling jobs.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

It is really important that people value vocational subjects and the jobs that they lead to. However, the national minimum wage does not: the minimum wage for apprentices remains astonishingly low and sends entirely the wrong message to young people.

The minister clearly agrees that raising the minimum wage for apprentices is a vital part of achieving parity of esteem and that, although the recent rise is welcome, £3.30 an hour—less than half the standard minimum wage—is nowhere near a living wage. Will she continue to push the United Kingdom Government on that issue and write to ask for a living wage for our apprentices?

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

We continue to push the UK Government on that. Indeed, as it happens, I did so as recently as last week. Under its own pay policy, the Scottish Government pays all its apprentices at the living wage rate.

Alison Johnstone might not be aware that a living wage accreditation does not include apprentice pay but, when we talk to employers about living wage accreditation, we always encourage them to include apprentices in it. Indeed, this morning, the company that I visited, which has just become an accredited living wage employer, extended the policy to all its apprentices. We want all employers in Scotland to follow that example.

Civil Engineering (Opportunities for Young People)

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to open up opportunities for young people to work in civil engineering. (S4O-04157)

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

Skills Development Scotland has been working with the Construction Industry Training Board to develop a foundation apprenticeship pathfinder for civil engineering technicians, which is to start in August 2015. Delivered in conjunction with West Lothian College, the pathfinder will allow young people to undertake relevant work-based learning during their senior phase of school.

In addition, Skills Development Scotland will shortly publish a skills investment plan for the construction sector that will set out a range of actions to attract and retain a skilled workforce to support the continuing growth of the sector.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Attracting young women into the industry is a problem. That has been repeated to me when I have met civil engineering companies. Will the minister tell the chamber how many women have entered civil engineering apprenticeships in the past 12 months and what specific work will be undertaken to ensure take-up of young women in such apprenticeships?

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

I do not have to hand the figure for the number of females entering civil engineering apprenticeships in the past 12 months. I am happy to write to Mary Fee on that.

Mary Fee asked what we are doing to encourage more women into civil engineering apprenticeships. I point out to her that the foundation apprenticeship pathfinder programme that I mentioned aims to tackle the gender imbalance in the sector and encourage more young women into engineering careers. We hope that 50 per cent of the 32 young people who will begin that two-year foundation apprenticeship in secondary 5 will be female.

In addition, a key focus of the shortly-to-be-announced skills investment plan for the construction sector will be not only to attract young people towards opportunities in the sector but to address underrepresentation across the construction workforce.

Finally, the member may be interested to know that, this very Monday, I attended an excellent event that was hosted in Glasgow City Council chambers in conjunction with Network Rail. Some 82 young women from secondary schools across Glasgow participated in the engineering your future event. It was a very successful event, and I hope that such events can engender enthusiasm for young women to look to the construction sector as a career.

Modern Apprenticeships (Kirkcaldy)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how many modern apprenticeships it supports in the Kirkcaldy parliamentary constituency. (S4O-04158)

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

The Scottish Government supports any apprentice aged 16 to 24 who is following an approved modern apprenticeship framework and those aged 25 and above in selected key, growth and enabling sectors.

Our national skills body, Skills Development Scotland, collects data based not on parliamentary constituency but rather on local authority area. I can therefore tell the member that, in 2013-14, there were 1,927 modern apprenticeship starts in Fife.

In the first three quarters of 2014-15, there were 1,252 modern apprenticeship starts in Fife. As at the end of December 2014, a total of 2,704 apprentices were in training in Fife.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I thank the minister for her answer. Would the minister agree that small local businesses can play an integral part in the development of apprenticeship schemes while simultaneously ensuring that they pay the living wage to their employees? Would the minister or the cabinet secretary agree to visit one such small local business within my constituency?

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

I absolutely agree with David Torrance that small businesses can benefit tremendously from employing a modern apprentice and I am aware that there are many such businesses across Fife—and Scotland as a whole—that are providing those fantastic opportunities for young people to earn a wage by working towards an industry-recognised qualification.

Of course, the cabinet secretary has already said today that, as a Government, we fully support the living wage campaign and encourage all employers across Scotland—regardless of size, sector or location—to pay at least the living wage. I am very pleased indeed to hear about the company to which David Torrance refers in his Kirkcaldy constituency and I would be delighted to take up his offer to visit that company to discuss its experience of the modern apprenticeship programme and to see how we can use that positive experience to encourage other small companies to get involved. I will have my private office contact David Torrance with a view to setting up such a visit.

Investors in Young People Scheme

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made with the investors in young people scheme. (S4O-04159)

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

The latest figures from Investors in People Scotland indicate that, since its launch, IIYP accreditation has been awarded to 93 employers across Scotland and about 190 are in discussions or working with Investors in People Scotland towards accreditation. As the member for Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley, Willie Coffey may be particularly interested to learn that 10 of those accreditations involve employers located in Ayrshire. Among the employers are ANCHO Ltd in Irvine and the Ayrshire Chamber of Commerce.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

I thank the minister for that answer. With that positive news and the recently announced funding of £6.5 million to improve youth employment, is the minister confident that we will continue to see good progress in the area of youth employment, particularly in my constituency of Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley?

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

This Government is determined to do all that we can to ensure that we continue to progress in making more opportunities available to our young people. From recent market statistics, we can see a continuing trend and that levels of youth unemployment are at their lowest for some five years. In relation to levels of youth employment—and, indeed, levels of youth inactivity—we outperform the rest of the United Kingdom.

As regards the specific investors in young people scheme, I believe that it has a role in encouraging employers to develop young people. Many of the employers who have themselves achieved accreditation are reported to be actively engaged in encouraging other employers to follow their example. That is one measure that can help and this Government is pursuing many other measures to ensure that we give our young people all the opportunities that they can expect in order to make their way in life in the world of work.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 7, in the name of Roderick Campbell, has not been lodged. Although we have an explanation, I regret to say that it is not satisfactory.

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what support it gives to 16 to 25-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. (S4O-04161)

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

Under this Government, we now have the highest number of young people successfully moving to a positive destination from school. Youth unemployment rates are at a five-year low, but we are more ambitious and do not wish to settle for a return to pre-recession levels.

We recognise that periods of unemployment or inactivity for a young person can have a significant impact on their future life chances, which is why tackling youth unemployment and increasing young people’s participation in learning, training and employment remain a priority.

With our national and local partners, we will continue to deliver programmes that are based on the principles of early intervention, such as the opportunities for all commitment, the youth employment Scotland fund and community jobs Scotland, and to focus on expanding our modern apprenticeship programme.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

What specific measures can be implemented to reduce the percentage of young people in Glasgow who are leaving school and not pursuing additional education, employment or training?

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

That is a good issue to raise. There must be a partnership between colleges, schools and parents, as well as employers, and that is part and parcel of our approach in regional areas. There is a Glasgow invest in young people group, with which I hope that Anne McTaggart will engage. The group was set up about a month ago, and I think that it would be helpful if she spoke to its members directly.

The important thing is to get people talking in the early years of secondary school about where they intend to go, rather than having them just fall out of school with no real constructive approach to what they are doing. We are focusing as much of our effort in that area as we possibly can.

We have a very good record in Scotland on inactivity rates and low unemployment rates as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom, but we still have a lot to do, and a lot more can be done.

Care Industry (Training and Apprenticeship Provision)

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase training and apprenticeship provision in the care industry. (S4O-04162)

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

This Government has committed to increase our target for modern apprenticeship starts from 25,000 each year to 30,000 by 2020. Increasing the overall number of starts will offer more choice to people who are considering a career in the care industry in particular and the wider economy in general. The availability of modern apprenticeship opportunities is, of course, reliant on demand from employers.

In recognition of the importance of the sector to the economy—from care in early years through to free personal care for the elderly—funding will be available from April 2015 through Skills Development Scotland for apprentices aged 25 and above who are following the health and social care modern apprenticeship framework.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The integration of health and social care and future demographics will result in a demand for high-quality and high-performance outcomes from the care sector. What recent discussions have the Government and its agencies had with training providers in the sector with those eventual outcomes in mind?

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

A key to the success of the MA programme is that it responds to employer demands. As such, it is important that the programme meets the needs and standards of the sector. There are now seven individual apprenticeship frameworks in health and social care, which have been developed by the Scottish Social Services Council. They provide clear work-based routes for the sector from Scottish credit and qualifications framework levels 6 to 10, and include the recently approved professional apprenticeship in care services leadership and management at SCQF level 10, which provides a progression route for employees in this important area.

In line with the recommendations from the commission on developing Scotland’s young workforce, Skills Development Scotland is undertaking research to identify future demand to support the expansion of the modern apprenticeship programme.

The Scottish Social Services Council and employers, together with training providers operating in the care sector, were consulted on the work. The SSSC was also surveyed in relation to demand to inform any contracting strategy for 2015-16, and SDS has met with it recently to discuss MA quality assurance.

Additionally, Chic Brodie may be interested to note that SDS attends the national health service modern apprenticeship network, which aims to promote modern apprenticeships in the sector and to encourage health boards to recruit modern apprentices.

Living Wage (Accredited Employers)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made toward achieving its target of at least 150 living wage accredited employers in Scotland, as set out in the programme for government. (S4O-04163)

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

As Bob Doris now knows from my earlier answer, we reached the target today. This morning, I visited CMS Window Systems in Cumbernauld, which is the 150th living wage accredited employer in Scotland. The company already has a strong record on recruitment and youth employment and it is setting a strong example to other employers and showing that ensuring that staff are paid fairly is no barrier to business growth.

I will now work with the Poverty Alliance to set even more stretching targets for accreditation, and I look forward to seeing many more organisations committing to pay the living wage in the future.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That is fantastic news. However, I am going to contact the Poverty Alliance to draw to its attention the fact that no large supermarket chain or small convenience store has yet been accredited as a living wage employer. In Glasgow region, the sector employs more than 3,000 workers, and some of the lowest-paid workers are likely to work in the sector. Will the cabinet secretary support my representations to the Poverty Alliance to ask it to engage with the sector to support it to work towards paying at least the living wage to all staff and to work constructively with organisations such as the Scottish Grocers Federation in doing so?

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

The short answer to that is yes. We work constantly with the Poverty Alliance and with sectors where there are significant challenges in achieving living wage status, simply because they start from such a low base. Many more employers pay the living wage than are accredited. The Government wants to ensure that people understand that accreditation is the gold star that they can get for paying the living wage.

“Severe Poverty in Scotland”

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the content of the report “Severe Poverty in Scotland” in relation to severe or extreme poverty among children. (S4O-04164)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Last week, we published “Severe Poverty in Scotland”, which showed that, in 2012-13, 710,000 people were living in severe or extreme poverty after housing costs. That comprised half a million working-age adults, 150,000 children and 60,000 pensioners. That is a disgrace but, as I said last week, it is an inevitable result of the United Kingdom Government’s failed austerity agenda and welfare cuts, which are slashing incomes for some of our poorest households.

We know that employment significantly reduces the risk of severe and extreme poverty, but in-work poverty nevertheless remains a problem. That is why we are committed to supporting people into fairly paid work and why we are doing what we can to mitigate the impact of welfare reform. That includes investing about £296 million from 2013-14 to 2015-16 to limit the damage of the cuts and the changes. However, we cannot fully mitigate all the effects.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Given the growing weight of evidence, including the reports commissioned from Sheffield Hallam University by the Welfare Reform Committee entitled “Hitting the poorest places hardest—The local and regional impact of welfare reform” and “The Cumulative Impact of Welfare Reform on Households in Scotland”, and given the continuing austerity following George Osborne’s budget, which Ed Balls has said that he would not reverse—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ask a question.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that the budget will have a devastating impact on vulnerable people in Scotland and will only push more people, particularly children, into poverty?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes. We have long voiced concerns that the UK Government’s austerity agenda is hitting the most vulnerable people hardest. The cumulative impact of Westminster’s welfare reforms alone could result in the Scottish welfare bill being cut by around £6 billion over the six years to 2016, yet George Osborne would go further, as would Ed Balls.

The Scottish Government is doing what it can with the resources and powers that it has to help those who are affected. As I said, that includes investing about £296 million over a two-year period to limit the damage from the UK Government reforms. We cannot fully mitigate the effects of welfare changes, but we are doing our best. The best mitigation would be to transfer all the welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament.

Pension Credit (Members of Religious Orders)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what meetings it has had with representatives of religious organisations who are denied pension credit as they are fully maintained by their order. (S4O-04165)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Government is aware of the issues in relation to pension credit and those who are fully maintained by their religious order. As the member will be aware, all aspects of the state pension and pension credit are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, and concerns about eligibility or other issues need to be taken up with UK ministers.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I have a letter dated 20 February 2014 from the then Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, which says:

“In order to understand the specific issue you have raised”—

that refers to previous correspondence from me—

“I have asked my officials to arrange to meet with representatives of the groups affected, to discuss their concerns and the potential next steps”.

I did not hear in the minister’s answer what meetings have taken place between Scottish Government officials and the orders affected, but perhaps she can help me on this. Everyone in the UK between the ages of 65 and 80 is entitled to receive pension credit, apart from two classes of people: prisoners and members of religious orders who are fully maintained by their order. In practice, that means that only a very small number of people are affected by what is in my opinion a particular loophole.

Does the minister believe that it is correct and fair that people who reach the pension age of 65 or 66 are entitled to no support from the state between that age and the age of 80 because they have joined an enclosed religious order? Does she believe that the UK Government should tackle the matter? Will she take the matter up with the UK Government as a matter of urgency?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I am certainly willing to take up the matter with the UK Government and to address the issues. We have had contact before with the UK Government about how it intends to address them. We recognise that there is a problem. I am certainly willing to take up the matter—I give that commitment today. I will raise it with the UK Government and I will pass on the response to the member.

Primary Healthcare Facilities (Residential Development)

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what guidance it has issued to planning authorities regarding the provision or expansion of primary healthcare facilities as a consequence of residential development. (S4O-04166)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have issued general guidance to planning authorities on the use of planning obligations to support development delivery. We will publish guidance on planning for infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, later this year.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Concerns have been raised with me that, when large-scale developments are proposed, there is often no prior consultation between developers, health boards and primary care providers such as general practices about the implications of those developments for existing facilities or about the space requirements in the developments for the construction of new facilities. Often, not enough space is allocated for sufficient facilities to be developed.

Is the cabinet secretary aware of that? Will he look to build that into the work that he is doing ahead of the guidance that he hopes to publish in due course?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am aware of the problem. I was aware of it previously, when I was the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, as well as now, as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights. We are looking at how we can deal with it.

At present, there are no such specific requirements for prior discussion and consultation with health boards and general practices during the pre-application process, but my view is that, as key agencies, health boards should be actively engaged in the preparation of strategic and local development plans. Early engagement is essential if the impact of development on healthcare facilities is to be properly planned and, where appropriate, dealing with that should be paid for through the use of planning obligations.

Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights (Budget Priorities)

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what the budget priorities are for the social justice, communities and pensioners’ rights portfolio in 2015-16. (S4O-04167)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The budget priorities for the social justice, communities and pensioners’ rights portfolio in 2015-16 include work to tackle poverty and inequality, to progress equality, to deliver more and better housing and to take forward delivery of new social security powers for Scotland.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

What is the budget for the pensioners’ rights part of the portfolio?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am happy to give a breakdown of the entire budget. Included in pensioners’ rights is part of the equalities budget, which is £20 million next year.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

Does the cabinet secretary share Labour’s support for the Scotland against the care tax campaign, which has been campaigning against the 12 per cent rise in care charges that was imposed across Scotland last year? If so, what priority will he give to addressing the campaign in his budget?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

That matter is the subject of discussion involving my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport and other Cabinet colleagues. We accept that there is an issue to be addressed. If I may say so, the worst area in that regard has been Glasgow, where the Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council has jacked up care charges to an astronomical level.

Social Care Charges Abolition (Fife Council)

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on poverty of Fife Council’s decision to abolish social care charges. (S4O-04168)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Local authorities have autonomy to set or waive charges for non-residential social care, within the context of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities’ charging guidance. The Scottish Government has not conducted any assessment of the impact of Fife Council’s decision on charging for social care. However, as part of our programme for government, we outlined a commitment to ensuring that all new and revised Scottish Government policies will be subject to a poverty impact assessment.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Labour-led Fife Council last year abolished housing support charges for its own sheltered housing tenants. As of yesterday, housing association sheltered housing tenants in Fife—some 101 people, at present—will no longer pay housing support charges.

Fife Council is managing to do that despite the on-going cuts that it must make. What is the cabinet secretary’s position on the possibility of other councils following Fife Council’s lead and reversing those charges on one of the most vulnerable groups in society?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

As I said to Jayne Baxter in my previous answer, local authorities have the autonomy to set or to waive charges for non-residential social care, including housing support charges. The Scottish Government is in continual dialogue with COSLA about charges—about uniformity of charges and when they should be applied. That consultation continues.

If there are to be charges, we all want to ensure that they are affordable and that the services that are provided are of a high quality and are the services that are required. As the cabinet secretary said a few moments ago, all those issues are under discussion.

Streamlined Planning Process

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that the planning process is as streamlined as possible. (S4O-04169)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We continue to work in partnership with our stakeholders to deliver a range of co-ordinated actions to streamline planning. That includes the planning performance framework, e-planning, improvement projects and legislation.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in order to ensure that we continue to see a diverse range of projects going through the planning process across all our communities, the process should be streamlined and easy to participate in, and should encourage continued development of communities, which I am sure we all want?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I totally agree with Richard Lyle. As he knows, we have made a number of reforms to the planning process in recent years. However, I believe that further reform of some aspects may be necessary in order to achieve a better and more streamlined planning system. We are working with stakeholders on a series of ideas and recommendations that they have made to us.

Home Energy Efficiency Loans

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it will spend the £14 million announced in the budget for low-cost home energy efficiency loans. (S4O-04170)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The interest-free loan scheme will be used to provide financial assistance to private sector households looking to install energy efficiency measures through the provision of a Government-backed loan. It will support our efforts to tackle fuel poverty, improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock, reduce carbon emissions and support the green economy. That funding is part of our record £114 million funding commitment in 2015-16, and it forms part of our £0.5 billion allocation to fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes since 2009. Details of the loan scheme will be announced shortly.

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

I very much welcome that improvement for household energy efficiency. I will see how it rolls out. Because it has an important role to play in our efforts to address fuel poverty and climate-change emissions, can the minister tell me what plans the Scottish Government has to build in the future on that welcome investment to ensure that even more people are taken out of fuel poverty?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

We intend to evaluate the effectiveness of the loan scheme in tackling fuel poverty and in improving the energy efficiency of housing stock. In due course we will consider whether such schemes have a long-term role to play.

Our commitment to tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency is there and will remain. It is evident from the more than £0.5 billion that we have allocated to those aims since 2009, and it is further emphasised by our record £114 million budget for loans in this financial year.

Consideration of any future schemes will take account of broader priorities on sustainability and fuel poverty, and of the context of the future spending review.

Poverty

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle poverty. (S4O-04171)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

We are committed to tackling the long-term drivers of poverty through early intervention and prevention. That is why

“building a fairer Scotland and tackling inequality”

was one of three key themes of the programme for government.

As part of that programme, we are further promoting the living wage across all sectors and delivering on our commitment to providing 600 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds.

In addition, we are providing 25,000 modern apprenticeship places every year and are investing about £296 million from 2013-14 to 2015-16 to help those who are affected by the UK Government’s welfare reforms.

We have also made commitments to ensuring that all new and revised Scottish Government policies will be the subject of a poverty impact assessment, and to appointing an independent adviser on poverty, and inequality to advise on any further actions that are needed to tackle poverty and to hold the Government to account on its performance.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The minister is correct: yesterday, the Scottish Government’s “Wealth and Assets in Scotland 2006-2012” survey report emphasised how extreme inequality is in our country, and in response, it announced that it would appoint an independent adviser on poverty and inequality to raise awareness of the realities of living in poverty.

Does not the minister think that those who live in poverty are well aware of the realities and that what they need is more support? Yesterday, Labour announced plans for a £175 million Scottish anti-poverty fund in the next session of Parliament—over and above the measures that have been elaborated by the minister. Will the minister support that measure?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Scottish Government is tackling the drivers of poverty and working to prevent poverty; it is simply not going to move mitigation from one budget to another, thereby just mitigating it another way. We want to address poverty and deal with the drivers of poverty—not just to mitigate it. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

That is what our plans are and that is why the First Minister announced in the programme for government that there will be a poverty adviser to look across all Government policy in order to ensure that poverty is considered and addressed in everything that the Government does, across all portfolios.

I say to Ken Macintosh—I am sorry; I meant Iain Gray—that we are dealing with it: we are tackling poverty and will continue to tackle it, rather than just jumping on something that came up yesterday that suggests that we cold mitigate one way or another. We want to do more than mitigate poverty: we want to address it.

Housing Completions

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the number of housing completions. (S4O-04172)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Scottish Government has set a five-year target to deliver 30,000 affordable homes, and has backed that up with plans to spend over £1.7 billion over the parliamentary session.

We are continuing to work creatively with our partners to use innovative ways to deliver more affordable homes. We are supporting a wide range of action to boost the supply of housing, working in partnership with Homes for Scotland and industry to support private sector recovery and growth.

Annabel Goldie

I thank the minister for her response. However, the reality is that 10,000 fewer houses were completed in 2014 than in 2007, when this Government came to power. There is another downside, which is that residential development is often concentrated in traditional communities such as my own, which places impossible pressure on infrastructure. In theory it is sustainable development, but in practice it is anything but.

What plans does the Scottish Government have for a housing policy that is based on diffusion, in order to spread more development among more communities and so mitigate the current oppressive overload on infrastructure in some communities?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The local authorities are the strategic housing providers and their plans show where they are looking at housing and how it should be spread out in their areas. The local authorities are responsible for saying what kind of houses are required and where they will be built.

Further to what Annabel Goldie has just said, we completed 901 more homes in the year ending September 2014 than we did in the year ending September 2013. We are building more homes per head of population across all sectors and tenures in Scotland than the rest of the UK is building. That should be welcomed.

Energy Future

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on Scotland’s energy future: achieving security of supply and a balanced energy mix. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Before I call the minister, I say to members that we are extremely tight for time all afternoon.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I would like to update the chamber on recent developments relating to Longannet and their implications for the future of Scotland’s electricity system.

On Monday, National Grid announced its decision to award a contract for additional voltage support services in 2016-17 to SSE’s Peterhead power station. I welcome the support for Peterhead. I understand that SSE is now progressing investment that will allow the station to operate more efficiently and flexibly. Peterhead is key to efforts to prove the viability of carbon capture and storage, which is a technology that has the potential to unlock future low-carbon thermal generation in Scotland.

For Longannet, however, National Grid’s decision is negative. Scottish Power has stated that “in all likelihood” it will be forced to close Longannet prematurely in 2016. The consequences of that would be profound for direct and indirect employment, for Scottish coal production, for hopes of restoring former opencast sites and, ultimately, for the balance and resilience of Scotland’s electricity supply.

Let me be clear. Although the decision is one for the company to make, we in the Scottish Government are determined to continue to explore any options that may avert the premature closure of Longannet. We believe that the decision that has been taken by National Grid and endorsed by the outgoing United Kingdom Government is flawed and fails to take account of serious flaws in the UK electricity supply system.

My foremost thoughts are for the 270 direct employees at Longannet and those affected in the related supply chain. This is a deeply worrying time for all those whose livelihoods depend most heavily on Longannet. I met the leader and deputy leader of Fife Council on 4 March, and I spoke again with Councillor David Ross earlier this week. We have agreed to work on a joint response. We will co-chair a meeting to co-ordinate our efforts and will invite input from Scottish Power, workforce representatives and other key stakeholders.

The Scottish Government-led partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—has contacted Scottish Power to outline the support that is on offer to affected employees. In addition, I will meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Longannet unions on Thursday. The Government and all our partners will strain every sinew to secure the best possible outcomes for all those affected and to mitigate the local and national economic impact if closure cannot be averted.

The expected closure of Longannet will be felt throughout the supply chain, particularly in the coal sector. The Scottish coal industry has put forward proposals to the UK Government for restoration coal, which would introduce a carbon price support exemption for opencast coal sites. As well as addressing the environmental liabilities that are associated with unrestored opencast, restoration coal has the potential to reduce Longannet’s running costs. The UK and Scottish Governments are committed to further joint work to implement that proposal, and I have written to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Priti Patel, to urge swift action.

I turn to the consequences of National Grid’s decision for the balance and resilience of Scotland’s energy supply. A balanced mix of clean thermal generation progressively fitted with CCS operating alongside renewables is and always has been this Government’s objective. Scotland’s comparative advantage in the generation of renewable electricity is huge—it has 90 per cent of the UK’s hydro capacity, 25 per cent of the European Union’s offshore wind and tidal power potential and 10 per cent of its wave power potential. Renewables now supply almost half of Scotland’s electricity consumption. To ignore that massive resource and squander the economic opportunity of a lifetime would be utterly reckless.

Some members believe that the development of renewables has harmed the prospects of thermal stations. Those arguments are false. They might have carried some credibility if we were in a situation of healthy oversupply, but spare capacity in the Great Britain system will fall to as low as 2 per cent by next winter. The fact that we are even debating Longannet’s future at exactly the point when the UK authorities have allowed energy security to dwindle so severely is a national scandal.

The Scottish Government has pushed National Grid to explain in detail the consequences of Longannet’s closure for Scotland’s energy security and black-start planning. We have still to receive the full details despite two letters from the First Minister to the Prime Minister.

I welcome National Grid’s recent commitment to publish a dedicated capacity assessment for Scotland, but surely we should have had that assessment many years ago.

We must also reflect on how we got to this point. The UK authorities have created an environment in which it is increasingly difficult to operate thermal plant in Scotland. Scotland exported 28 per cent of the power that we generated in 2013 and we want to continue to deliver large amounts of electricity across these islands, but our ability to do so is undermined by a UK framework that penalises Scottish generators and discourages investment.

The location-based transmission charging methodology that was introduced to Scotland in 2005 under a Labour UK Government is the single biggest and most pressing issue. There are, of course, other factors that affect the profitability of all coal-fired generation across Britain, but no other factor uniquely disadvantages Longannet. With 12 per cent of GB electricity generation, Scottish generators pay 35 per cent of the charges. Longannet alone pays over £40 million annually to connect to the grid, whereas similar stations in England and Wales pay much less or may even be paid to connect.

We are told that locational grid charging is designed to discourage the siting of energy generation away from major population centres, but it penalises Longannet, which is, of course, close to the city of Edinburgh and all of central Scotland. Longannet is charged £17.15 per kilowatt whereas generators in Cornwall are paid £5.80 per kilowatt. In Somerset, where Hinkley C will connect, generators are paid £3.94 per kilowatt.

We are coming to the nub of the problem. Scotland has an established policy towards its electricity generation that recognises the need to maintain a balanced mix of generation, but our efforts are frustrated by the UK Government’s unwillingness to address Scottish issues properly. For example, the UK capacity market takes no account of location or the flexibility that is provided by pumped storage. We no longer have a say over the revenue support for renewables under the contracts for difference scheme, even for Scotland-based projects. Our ability to meet our renewables ambitions is severely restricted by the lack of clear and consistent commitments by the UK Government under the levy control framework, and the UK Government has refused to address industry concerns regarding degression rates under the hydro feed-in tariff.

We have made some progress on securing a commitment for support for renewables on the Scottish islands, but there is no firm resolution yet. Transmission charging is inhibiting the construction of the new high-efficiency gas station at Cockenzie, which I consented in 2011, and is also restricting the output at Peterhead.

It is clear that, on a wide range of issues, we remain at the mercy of decisions that are taken in Westminster over which the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have no control. I am Scotland’s energy minister, but energy policy remains largely a reserved matter. That lack of power over key decisions on energy policy should concern all political parties in Scotland and should prompt some deeper reflection on the future of our energy system.

There will be opportunities to review the energy policy landscape post-May, but our immediate priority—ideally supported by a show of unity across the chamber—must be to avert the premature closure of Longannet.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The minister will now take questions on his statement. I intend to allow approximately 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

The minister says he would like cross-party support for his immediate priority, which is

“to avert the premature closure of Longannet.”

Unfortunately, he has not told us how he intends to achieve that end. If plan A was to lobby National Grid to award its voltage control contract for 2016-17 to Longannet rather than to Peterhead, it has clearly failed.

What is the minister’s plan B? Mr Ewing has talked about the impact of locational charging on the transmission system. He will, of course, know that Peterhead is further north than Longannet and that it also faces higher transmission charges. He and Iberdrola, which owns Scottish Power, have known for years about transmission charges. Iberdrola clearly decided some time ago not to make the investment required for Longannet to conform to European regulatory requirements to stay open beyond 2020. That is a commercial decision that Iberdrola is entitled to make, but the minister knew about that too.

Although the minister might want to make wider points in the chamber today, the Longannet workforce wants to hear whether there is a plan B, what it is and when he will share any such strategy with those who are most directly affected by the decision. The minister has had years to work with other stakeholders to prepare for when unabated coal generation at Longannet would no longer be possible, albeit that that time has now been brought forward. Can he tell us today what the plans are so that the Longannet workforce is not left in the dark any longer?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Scottish Government is determined to explore every opportunity to avert the premature closure of Longannet. We are pleased that, to that end, we will work alongside the union Prospect, which has urged all politicians to support that aim and carry out that work. Garry Graham of Prospect said that Prospect will ask all Scottish politicians and politicians north and south of the border to work together to ensure that there is a future for Longannet.

I have worked with Councillor David Ross, the leader of Fife Council, on many matters. He has said that he still believes that Longannet has a long-term sustainable future. If the workforce representatives and the local authority believe that we should work together across the Parliament to achieve that objective, I hope that the Labour Party will join that campaign.

Mr Macdonald asked a reasonable question about what plan B is. It is to persuade National Grid, which is in charge of systems operations, as those who heard its recent evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee well know, to use its extensive powers and enormous budget of something of the order of £1 billion to make the relatively modest commitment to Longannet that would be required to tackle the higher transmission costs with which it is burdened. I hope that we will gain the clear support of the Labour Party for that campaign.

Moreover, after May, with an incoming Administration at Westminster, we will have an opportunity to take a different approach to safeguarding the security of energy supply in these islands. A wide range of experts and commentators have informed our view and given the Scottish Government evidence that they believe that National Grid’s assumptions about security of supply in the UK are extremely optimistic. For example, its winter statement assumes that 90 per cent of some thermal generation stations will continue to operate. Many of those who operate stations do not share that optimism. Moreover, another imminent factor is that tech will be given up by many companies in the coming weeks. That means that it is correct for National Grid to do a reappraisal.

When I met Mike Calviou in London last Thursday, he confirmed that it is perfectly possible for other, alternative arrangements to be made. There is not a shadow of a doubt that it is perfectly possible for Longannet to continue to do an excellent job for Scotland for several years yet. What is in doubt is whether there is a clear cross-party consensus and the political will to set our common weight behind that task.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. As a Fife representative, I am very aware of the impact that Longannet’s early closure would have on the local economy. Our first priority must be to support those whose jobs are at risk, and I welcome the measures that were set out today in the minister’s statement.

However, we know from Scottish Power that transmission charges were not the only issue forcing the closure of Longannet. As Lewis Macdonald said, the Peterhead station pays higher charges than Longannet, but there is no proposal to close it. Despite the minister’s assertions, it is beyond doubt that the overprovision of electricity supply in Scotland today has contributed to higher charges.

The current locational transmission system protects consumers, particularly in the north of Scotland, from higher bills, while consumers in London and the south-east pay more. What exactly is the Scottish Government proposing as an alternative and how much more will Scottish consumers pay as a result?

Does this whole episode not expose once again the utter failure of SNP energy policy? It is anti-fracking, it is anti-nuclear and it is obsessed with wind power, and as a result we face the loss of 55 per cent of our generating capacity in eight years. Energy-rich Scotland will be importing power from England in order to keep the lights on. In the face of all that evidence, surely it is time for a new approach to energy from this Government.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Mr Fraser said that he is based in Fife. Perhaps that is why he seems to be unaware that people who live further north in Scotland pay higher electricity bills, not lower ones, as he suggested. That will come—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

You would put them up. Do your homework, Fergus.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Fraser.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

That will come as a surprise to those who, like us, are working hard to reduce the burden of extra costs on the north of Scotland. In case Mr Fraser does not know it, I add that that burden exists substantially because the distribution system cost is around £112 per head—far more than the cost of the transmission system. If he checks his facts on that, he might just arrive at better conclusions.

I am disappointed by Mr Fraser. On 17 February, his view, as quoted on BBC Radio Scotland’s “Newsdrive”, with regard to transmission charges and the £40 million penalty for operating in Scotland, was that the system

“does discriminate against Longannet, and that’s a matter of concern for me.”

Moreover, I am disappointed for a second reason. Mr Fraser is never slow to challenge the Scottish Government when he feels that any other costs that face business are higher north of the border than to the south. However, for some strange reason, when it comes to electricity generation—even when the facts clearly demonstrate that Longannet, despite the Conservatives’ shaking heads, faces transmission charges of £40 million whereas coal-fired generating stations down in England are paid to contribute to the grid—the Conservatives say nothing about it. Could that be because their bosses, who are based in London, do not allow them to stand up for Scotland? Is that it?

Perhaps Mr Fraser might want to reflect on public opinion in Scotland. Some 71 per cent support wind, while nearly 10 per cent support the Conservative Party.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We have very little time this afternoon, so I ask that the remaining questions are brief.

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

Successive UK Governments—the policy makers of the UK electricity market—and National Grid pose a twin threat to energy producers and consumers, including my constituents and others all over Scotland, with a double whammy of dearer grid access charges and dearer electricity for consumers the further north they live in the UK.

Is the minister aware of the continuing concerns in the European Union about discrimination against energy producers by National Grid, which has led to the potential early closure and huge job losses at Longannet, and which also holds back the development of renewables in our part of the United Kingdom?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I am. The member mentions Europe. When Commissioner Oettinger visited Scotland, he said that, with our success in renewables and with increasing interconnection such as that associated with NorthConnect and the Irish-Scottish links on energy study—ISLES—project, we would have the capacity to be a European reserve for electricity. It appears that we have support from Brussels. What we now need is a little bit of positive support from London.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I say to the minister that we are absolutely happy to work together and do everything in our power to sustain high-quality jobs, but we need to see a plan. However, despite a four-minute answer, I am no clearer about the minister’s proposal. Transmission charges are not the issue, and simply blaming that issue alone is no substitute for having a plan. I therefore ask the minister again: what is his plan?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The issue has of course arisen because of the higher costs. Scottish Power has set that out extremely clearly. Incidentally—this should be a matter of record—Scottish Power has invested £348 million in its plant. There have been attacks on that company from the Labour Party. I think that those attacks are outrageous. It is a matter of record that the company has invested substantially to deal with tackling emissions and in support of its plant, and it continues so to do.

As I have already stated—perhaps Jackie Baillie was not ingesting what I said—when I met National Grid in London last week, it said that it is perfectly possible that other arrangements can be made. That was the view of Mike Calviou of National Grid—just as the contract was issued this week.

Moreover, if the margin of 2 per cent is as parlous as many experts who advise us believe it to be, National Grid will have to put in place other measures in order to protect security of supply. Sir John Armitt, who advises the Labour Party, said:

“We are very close to being in a crisis when it comes to energy.”

I have many more experts to quote, but it appears that the Labour Party does not agree even with its own experts who give it advice.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

This is a bad decision. I welcome the minister’s comment about the cost-reduction proposal in relation to restoration coal. If the cost-reduction proposal is rejected, what might be the unemployment impact of the proposed closure of Longannet on its supply chain, particularly with regard to the production of the raw material of coal in Ayrshire, and how can we enhance job opportunities through an accelerated balanced mix of energy supply sources?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am working with members of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in order to pursue the opportunities that Chic Brodie rightly describes. The work that we have done on the opencast mining task force—which met most recently on 16 March—is designed to achieve that end. We want restoration coal and we want Longannet to continue to be a market for that coal. We believe that the proposal will allow restoration of the mines in Scotland, which is a terrific objective and one that we share.

To answer Mr Brodie’s question, what we need is full support from Labour and the Conservatives for our aim of averting the premature closure of Longannet, along with the support of the Liberal Democrats, from whom we are perhaps about to hear.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

When I represented west Fife in the House of Commons, I repeatedly made the case for the plant to receive extra Government support for CCS and other low-emission measures, so the announcement of the closure of the plant was a sad day for me. However, once the finances for CCS failed to stack up, it was clear that it was not a matter of if but of when.

The priorities must now be to look after the workforce and give them certainty, but also to have constructive discussions with the UK Government and the energy network about the sustainable energy mix in Scotland.

One other issue has not been raised, so I will raise it now. Are there consequences for the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line, which was built to supply Longannet power station?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am sure that Keith Brown will respond to the specific point about the railway line. Plainly, a lot of money has been invested in the railway line on the basis of Longannet’s requirements, although, of course, there are also passenger services to Alloa.

I hope that, following my statement and answers, we can all pledge to do what we can to avert Longannet’s premature closure. I thought that that was an objective around which we could unite. It would be extremely sad for Scotland and for the huge number of people who believe that Longannet has done, as it has, a great job for Scotland—a job that will continue to be necessary for several more years—if Longannet did not enjoy cross-party support, at least from the major parties.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We have less than five minutes in which to get through a number of speakers. I ask that members keep their questions brief.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The minister mentioned in his statement those who are affected in the related supply chain. What assessment has he made of the impact of Longannet’s closure on the coal supply chain and, particularly, of the impact on Hunterston terminal, the Clydeport facility that operates coal handling, which is located in my constituency?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The impact would be substantial. For example, the estimated yield of restoration coal would be 5 million tonnes in aggregate. That yield would serve to sustain the supply chain in the member’s constituency and other parts of Scotland.

There is work to be done to consider what the impacts of Longannet’s closure would be. We will work closely with the existing task forces and the council to that end. However, we would far prefer to avert the closure if we possibly can, and our efforts are directed towards that objective.

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

Longannet is in my constituency, so this week’s announcement has been a bitter blow for my constituents. I, too, want every option to be explored to keep Longannet open. Given that 270 jobs are directly at threat and that up to 1,000 more jobs are at risk throughout the supply chain and independent businesses in the local economy, will the minister back my call and that made by Councillor David Ross, the leader of Fife Council, for a task force to be set up immediately to develop an action plan to protect the local community, to build up its resilience, to promote regeneration and to ensure that Kincardine and west Fife are protected against the worst effects of the site’s potential early closure?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

If I may say so, and with respect to the member, the best way to protect her constituents and others throughout the country is to prevent the premature closure of Longannet. Sadly, that objective does not appear to be getting explicit support from Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, and I do not think that we are in any doubt about what Patrick Harvie will say in a minute.

Of course, if it is necessary, we will appoint any force needed to tackle the consequences of closure. Indeed, I have agreed with Councillor Ross to co-chair a meeting bringing together all stakeholders. PACE is already in, and is consulting Scottish Power. However, were Longannet to close, there are still 12 months before that happens. Most task forces are appointed after a closure or redundancies. The task before us is to do everything that we possibly can to prevent that eventuality from occurring. Of course, we are working extremely closely with the council leadership and the executive officers in Fife. We will continue to explore with them everything possible that we can do in the interim.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I would be happy to see the Government pursue any work to explore alternative economic futures for the local area, which should have been the priority for years rather than kidding on people that coal has a long-term future in this country.

Will the minister acknowledge that, even once Longannet is gone, Scotland will be a net exporter of electricity due to the growth of renewables? Should that not be the focus of our energy policy? Should we not ensure that the economic priorities are for alternatives for the community?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We are a net exporter. Last year, we exported 28 per cent of our electricity generated in Scotland.

We are, and have been, pursing with Fife Council other opportunities for economic regeneration in Fife. Patrick Harvie’s premise that we have not been doing that is complete nonsense. For example, just a couple of weeks ago I was honoured to conduct the opening ceremony of the new biomass plant at Markinch. It opened after about a decade of work and £300 million-worth of investment that we contributed to, and it also sustains the future of Tullis Russell. A few weeks ago, I also visited RAF Leuchars and St Andrews as well as tourism businesses in Fife.

Of course we continue to explore all avenues of economic regeneration, including the energy field and the oil and gas field that Mr Harvie disapproves of. I have to say that, in making this statement, I am disappointed that there has been no explicit support for keeping Longannet open for the next several years, which is something that people outwith the chamber strongly believe should happen.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I understand that last month the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to ask for a review of electricity supply and security of supply. Have we had a reply yet?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Mr Don is correct. Following a meeting of the energy advisory board at which National Grid was present and was involved in discussions, the First Minister expressed severe concerns to the Prime Minister. However, he rejected those concerns, stating that he backed National Grid, and has therefore refused to intervene. Post May, however, the outgoing Government might be replaced by another one with a stronger Scottish voice in Westminster and an entirely different way of taking forward Scotland’s needs.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

Will the minister confirm that the current moratorium on fracking, which excludes underground coal gasification, was in no way connected to a future plan to diversify Longannet and convert it to a UCG plant when the original closure date of 2020 was reached? Will he also confirm that neither he nor Scottish Government officials have had any discussions with Ineos or other parties about the use of Longannet as a potential UCG facility?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I can confirm that I have been in no discussions on those matters.

Economy

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12776, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on supporting Scotland’s economy.

I call Jackie Baillie to speak to and move the motion. Ms Baillie, you have 14 minutes.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It has been a mere two weeks since we last debated the issue of supporting Scotland’s economy, and I note that both of the debates that we have had on the subject have been brought forward by Scottish Labour, not the Scottish National Party. In that time, we have reflected on the publication of the Government’s annual accounts for 2013-14 and not one but two papers from the Scottish Government on the benefits of improved economic performance. Of course, last week, we also had the United Kingdom budget. All provide insights into the choices that voters face in the upcoming general election, and I want to take each of them in turn.

Let me start with the record of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition in government. In the past five years, four out of five new jobs that have been created in Scotland have been low paid, with 84,000 workers trapped in zero-hours contracts. Under David Cameron, energy bills have increased by more than £300, while the number of families with children who cannot afford to heat their homes has risen to an all-time high. Since 2010, the average Scottish worker’s annual wage has fallen by almost £1,600 in real terms and, unsurprisingly, the Tories have cut taxes for millionaires and have raised VAT—a regressive tax that hits the hardest-pressed families the most—to 20 per cent.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I see that both the Tories and the Lib Dems have popped up. I will give way in a second.

Thanks to the Tories and Lib Dems, we have had 24 tax rises that have left families £1,127 per year worse off. I will now take an intervention from one of the coalition partners.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the position is as dismal as Jackie Baillie paints it, why do 40 per cent of the population prefer George Osborne as chancellor and only 21 per cent think that Ed Balls would do a better job?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Obviously there is no accounting for taste. I disagree with the number that would prefer George Osborne—and unsurprisingly so, given that, under his watch, tax avoidance is now costing us £34 billion. We also saw more than 22,000 children in Scotland relying on food banks last year. I do not know what some members are laughing about; I think that that is pretty serious. In 2011, there was one Trussell Trust food bank in Scotland; now there are 48. Taken together, I think that that is a damning indictment of five years of Tory misrule.

Just yesterday, the Scottish Government published an analysis of inequality in our country, and it told us the stark reality of Scotland today. The wealthiest 10 per cent of households own 44 per cent of all of the wealth. In contrast, the least wealthy half of households in Scotland own just 9 per cent of total wealth. There is no doubt that, under the Tories, the rich are getting richer and the poor are even worse off than they were before. Inequality is increasing. That is not good for the economy and it is not good for the country. Those figures show that we simply cannot afford another five years of failed Tory austerity so that those at the top continue to thrive while working families across Scotland struggle to make ends meet. That is simply not fair, and only Labour is in a position to end Tory austerity.

What about the Tories’ attempts to reduce the deficit?

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On the basis that Mark McDonald has an injured leg, I shall give way to him.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her sympathy. I note her claim that only Labour offers an alternative, but given that the shadow chancellor stated, the day after the budget, that he would reverse absolutely nothing from George Osborne’s budget, in what way is the Labour Party offering any sort of alternative to the austerity proposed by the Tories?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

There is a significant alternative. Labour has never supported Tory austerity plans. The Tory budget is so insignificant that it does not begin to address the problems that we have. The Tories have said that they would reduce the deficit, but they have quite simply failed to do even that. In 2010, the Tories said that they would balance the books by 2015 and that they would raise living standards for all. Living standards have fallen. Real wages are down. Prices are up. We are facing a significant cost-of-living crisis. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that living standards are lower now than when the Tories came into office. As for balancing the books, the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government is set to borrow more than £200 billion more than it planned to borrow in 2010.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Jackie Baillie has forgotten one very important fact, which is that it was her Government that left us with this mess to clear up in the first place. She has also forgotten that we have created 187,000 extra jobs. Does she have an answer to that?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I simply say that it ill behoves a Liberal Democrat to talk about budgets, particularly when the Liberal Democrats promised, going into an election, to scrap tuition fees, and the minute they were in power changed their minds.

The Tory budget last week did very little to redistribute wealth in this country or to improve the lot of hard-working people and families. Perhaps most significant was what the Tories did not say. There was barely a mention of public services such as our national health service or schools. There was not a word on the cuts to come, and there are cuts to come. They will be deeper and more significant in the next two years than anything that we have seen in the previous five. That is what the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has told us.

Tory spending plans will mean £70 billion of cuts to public spending if the Tories win the election—more than double the amount admitted to by David Cameron and George Osborne. That would mean a real-terms cut of £2.7 billion a year to spending in Scotland by the end of the next Parliament.

We know that continuing Tory austerity undermines our NHS. We know that Tory austerity denies opportunities for our young people and that it denies security in old age. To end Tory austerity, we need to get rid of the Tories at the election or we will have another five years of the deepest and most savage cuts to our public services, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1930s—a time before we created the NHS and when kids left school at age 14.

Labour has a better plan. Our values and our vision are of an economy that works for all, a politics where everyone’s voice is heard, and a society based on the common good. A Labour Government will raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour. We will ban exploitative zero-hours contracts. We will freeze energy bills so that they can only fall not rise, and we will have fair taxes in place of the regressive taxation of the Tories.

A Labour Government will increase the taxes of the wealthiest few to give working-class Scots a better shot at life. We will use the mansion tax on homes worth £2 million to fund 1,000 more nurses in Scotland’s NHS, and we will increase the top rate of tax to 50p to invest in the next generation.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Jackie Baillie give way?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will Jackie Baillie give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No, I have taken lots of interventions already.

We will end tax avoidance by the hedge funds and the tax havens and bring an end to big companies doing sweetheart deals with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

The Tories will not support that because they oppose the redistribution of wealth, and Alex Salmond told us at the weekend that he agrees with the Tories. There we have it. The Scottish National Party will oppose tax rises even on the wealthiest few. So much for progressive politics from the SNP.

Let us examine what the SNP promises. It offers full fiscal autonomy, under which Scotland raises all its own taxes for all its own spending. That means scrapping the Barnett formula, which protects Scotland’s public services, such as our NHS and our schools.

A fortnight ago, we knew that full fiscal autonomy would mean that Scotland had more than £6 billion less for public spending in 2014-15. That was based on what we knew about the structural gap as well as the falling oil price.

Since the UK budget and the revised OBR projections, we know that the situation is even worse. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that the cost of full fiscal autonomy—the SNP’s policy—is now a staggering £7.6 billion black hole at the heart of the Scottish budget each and every year. That is a bombshell of £1,400 for every person in Scotland. We would need either to have huge cuts to services or raise taxes by that amount. It is simply staggering.

Scrapping the Barnett formula, as the SNP wants to do, would mean cutting our NHS in half, scrapping every school in the country and cancelling the state pension in Scotland. It would have devastating consequences for all of us.

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

This is getting surreal.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Last week, we estimated that Scotland would lose at least 138,000 jobs based on a £6 billion black hole. That is a loss of one in every 16 Scottish jobs.

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

Oh dear!

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Mr Stevenson!

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

With a £7.6 billion black hole, that number just got bigger.

The SNP promises not just Tory austerity but austerity on steroids. It is a completely bizarre policy that would cost us all dearly. With the SNP’s austerity max, cuts would be not a risk but a certainty.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Jackie Baillie give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No.

As Peter Jones put it in yesterday’s Scotsman, “Dump fiscal autonomy—it’s insanity”. Peter Jones is not the only one saying that. The Scottish Trades Union Congress has strongly voiced its opposition, as have a number of leading economists and impartial experts who have warned of the consequences for our public services.

We were also treated to the First Minister’s plan to reduce the deficit and increase spending. She promised £180 billion of investment across the UK and debt reduction in every year. The truth is that the SNP got that wrong and debt would increase. The Deputy First Minister read out the figures for us all to know the truth. The SNP had to revise its figures to show a decrease in investment so that debt would reduce but, even though it has been caught out, it returns to using the original figures, which are simply not true. We just cannot believe a word that we are told by the SNP finance minister.

However, the SNP tells us that we can grow our way out of the problem. In its two papers on the benefits of improved economic performance, it points to increases in factor productivity and investment and to exports going up by 50 per cent. The economics are fascinating; the assumptions are, to be frank, heroic. The SNP publishes two papers in six days and, suddenly, we have added £700 million to the bottom line.

That analysis is not rooted in reality but, even allowing for the SNP’s figures, which are contested, there remains a huge gap in the nation’s finances. Using the SNP’s best figures, we would receive an additional £17 billion in 10 years. That sounds a lot but, with the Barnett formula, we would receive an extra £76 billion over 10 years, so where would the difference come from? The truth is that it would come from all of us in tax rises or deep and catastrophic cuts to services. It would also mean that there was absolutely no possibility of Scottish public finances being in any fit state to ease austerity. Under full fiscal autonomy, there could only ever be harsher and longer-lasting austerity.

As I said two weeks ago, no amount of name changing will help the SNP. Full fiscal autonomy became full revenue retention but the policy itself remains entirely wrong-headed and the modelling is suspect. Do the assumptions include the block grant? I look forward to hearing from the finance secretary about that. Do the assumptions include Barnett? John Swinney knows that we cannot have both and there is dishonesty in the modelling.

It is truly astonishing that John Swinney is backing a policy of full fiscal autonomy that he knows is madness, lacks credibility and will hurt the country deeply.

Much of Labour’s policy offer in recent weeks has come about because of the Barnett bonus. We would use the proceeds from the mansion tax to invest in our NHS and to invest in 1,000 extra nurses. We would use the money from pension tax relief to deliver a better future for 18 and 19-year-olds, keep tuition fees free and improve bursaries for the least well-off students.

We would back the living wage, making employment fairer—something that the SNP has voted against five times in this chamber. We would make sure that Scottish people succeed because we know that when Scottish people prosper, Scotland prospers too. None of that would happen with the SNP’s policy of full fiscal autonomy and none of it would happen under the Tory austerity plans.

Scottish Labour has a better plan. Our values and vision are for a better future, so let us go out and change Scotland. This is not a time to gamble with the SNP. Let us make sure that we end Tory austerity and kick the Tories out of Government.

I move,

That the Parliament rejects the UK Government’s plans for further austerity; believes that George Osborne’s economic plan is based on extreme spending cuts and regressive taxation and will have a detrimental impact on the UK’s economy; notes that the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned about yet further and more savage cuts in the next two years; further believes that the Scottish Government’s plans for full fiscal autonomy within the UK would have instant and damaging consequences for Scotland’s economy, with huge funding cuts to health, education and policing totalling £7.6 billion in additional cuts or tax rises, as confirmed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies; understands the necessity for progressive taxation to support hardworking families across the UK; believes that Labour’s redistributive policy plans, which include a 50p top rate of tax for those earning over £150,000, a 10p starting rate of tax to save money for hard working families, the introduction of a mansion tax and banker’s bonus tax, counter Conservative austerity, and believes that the only way to avert a £7.6 billion deficit would be to reject full fiscal autonomy within the UK in favour of keeping the Barnett bonus.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We are desperately short of time. I call the Deputy First Minister, who has up to 10 minutes.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I thought when Jackie Baillie started her speech that, on such a landmark occasion, when the Labour Party had decided to have a debate about Scotland’s economy, we would have a comprehensive explanation of that party’s alternative strategy to advance the issues about which it is concerned. I think that about 90 seconds out of the 14 minutes were about the Labour Party’s plans; the rest of the speech was just the usual bile from Jackie Baillie, dished out to absolutely everybody, on the critique of the Labour Party.

I will try to be as helpful as I can be in finding common ground with Jackie Baillie in the debate. The one thing that I agree with her on is that the United Kingdom’s austerity programme has failed, by any standard. The programme has delayed the UK’s economic recovery, has done little to achieve the chancellor’s original deficit targets and has disproportionately hit the poorest in our society.

Members are criticising me—I hear muttering from Conservative members—so let me share some of the issues. The Conservatives are aware that, in June 2010, the chancellor predicted that the UK would run a surplus on the structural current budget of £5 billion in this financial year. He now expects to run a structural current deficit of more than £45 billion this year. That evidence demonstrates that the public finances have not recovered in the fashion that he predicted in June 2010.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Swinney give the chancellor some credit for having created a situation in which we have, in the United Kingdom, the fastest-growing economy in the western world?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The thing about that analysis is that we have to look at all the years of the chancellor’s term in office. Back in 2010, he predicted that we would experience in 2012 and 2013 the type of economic conditions that we are experiencing now. The current conditions are welcome—I put that on the record—but we should have been appreciating and experiencing them in 2012 and 2013.

At that time, we experienced nothing of the sort. We experienced the implications—as I told Parliament that we would—of the severe cuts that were made in 2010, which interrupted the first signs of economic recovery that were starting to appear when the Conservatives came to office. As a consequence, the chancellor has failed to meet his economic targets. He said that the structural budget should currently be in a £5 billion surplus—

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Following Murdo Fraser’s point, why, in the Deputy First Minister’s view, is growth in the UK projected to be better, and the employment rate predicted to be higher, than in almost all the eurozone countries?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The answer is the same one as I gave Mr Fraser: we had two years in which we should have experienced faster growth, as the chancellor predicted that we would, but we experienced nothing of the sort. We are now beginning to see the emergence of that growth. If we compare the pattern of economic growth that we are experiencing now with the period that the chancellor’s predictions covered, we find that his predictions for 2012 and 2013 were utterly flawed.

Last week, the chancellor had every opportunity to change his economic direction. However, despite the headroom that has been generated by the improvements in the economic outlook that I have just acknowledged, he chose to continue with the harmful austerity agenda. We were told last week that austerity would end one year earlier and that planned spending cuts had been scaled back, but the reality is that, the day before the budget, George Osborne planned £30 billion-worth of cuts, and the day after the budget, he was still planning £30 billion of cuts. Those are the damaging implications of the stewardship of the UK public finances, courtesy of George Osborne.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hear what Mr Swinney says, but why does he think that the answer to record high levels of debt is even more debt?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will address that issue in a moment—I plan to deal with such questions later in my speech.

Given that critique of austerity, what was remarkable was not just the chancellor’s inflexibility last week but the fact that Labour’s shadow chancellor Ed Balls explicitly approved of the chancellor’s approach and said that he would not reverse any of the budget measures. Labour has embraced the chancellor’s austerity agenda by signing up to the UK Government’s fiscal mandate. As the chancellor confirmed in his speech last week, meeting the fiscal target would require £30 billion of spending cuts over 2016-17 and 2017-18.

I tell Labour members who are unsure about their position that the charter for budget responsibility, for which their colleagues in the House of Commons voted on 13 January, contained an implicit assumption. To meet the fiscal mandate and the supplementary debt target set out in the updated charter, the UK Government estimates that, on current forecasts, around £30 billion of discretionary consolidation is likely to be required over the following two years—2016-17 and 2017-18.

I think that the Labour Party—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will give way in a moment. Jackie Baillie has, as usual, made her clarion call for everybody to be honest and transparent. She should be honest and transparent and accept that Labour is as wedded to austerity as are the Conservatives.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Perhaps the cabinet secretary disagrees with the Resolution Foundation, which suggested that Labour’s plans for the next Parliament would see an extra £43 billion invested. Perhaps he disagrees with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that there is

“not a huge amount of difference”

between the Labour and Scottish National Party spending plans. If he thinks that we in Labour support austerity, is it not the case that he does, too?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is lovely to hear all those quotes, but I want Jackie Baillie to explain to Parliament why the Labour Party voted in favour—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We did not.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Jackie Baillie has just said, “We did not.” She obviously does not know what day of the week it is.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the cabinet secretary take another intervention?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

No. I have already given way—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

He does not want to hear it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Well, okay—we will have it. Go on.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Voting to balance the books is entirely different from voting for a package of cuts. We reject Tory austerity, and it is about time that John Swinney did, too.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Labour Party voted for the charter for budget responsibility, which requires £30 billion of discretionary consolidation—in plain language for Jackie Baillie, that means cuts. She has just said that the Labour Party does not support cuts. Maybe I am now able to follow her argument. Maybe she is persuaded by the line of argument that the approach should involve

“sensible reductions in public spending”.

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Labour motion that was put to the House of Commons on 4 March. The last time that I looked, the phrase

“sensible reductions in public spending”

meant cuts. Whichever way Jackie Baillie wants to have it, the Labour Party is just as wedded to austerity and cuts as the Conservative Party is.

I was rather surprised by Jackie Baillie’s argument in criticising the fiscal approach that the First Minister has advanced. Jackie Baillie’s argument was that investing in the economy, which is what we want to happen, is somehow a bad thing.

The point that I told Mr Rennie that I would come on to is that I believe that there is a moment in economic recovery when we have to invest to support, encourage and nurture growth, and the proposals that we have set out are designed to do that. They are designed to invest in the economy and create a climate in which we can undertake greater levels of economic activity, which will encourage and motivate greater participation in the economy. That will ensure that we have more taxpayers and, as a consequence, the public finances will become stronger. That is the thinking behind our stance. I would have thought that that might have attracted support from the Labour Party, but—who knows?—the result of the election might lead to that.

Willie Rennie rose—

I will give way.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are in your last minute, Mr Swinney. You are not taking an intervention.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am sorry—thank goodness someone is here to overrule me, Presiding Officer.

The Scottish Government is committed to taking forward a programme of investment in the economy. We believe that the UK Government should change its fiscal stance to enable us to do that more effectively by having the resources to invest in securing economic recovery and development in Scotland. We want to be able to do that through the power and effectiveness of a strong group of SNP MPs in the Westminster Parliament after the election. I look forward to seeing that result on 8 May.

I move amendment S4M-12776.4, to leave out from “further believes” to end and insert:

“condemns the Fiscal Mandate, endorsed by Labour, which will lead to a requirement for a further £30 billion of cuts over 2016-17 and 2017-18; further condemns the statement from the Shadow Chancellor that there is nothing he would reverse from the Chancellor’s 2015 Budget statement; endorses the need for increased investment in public services; agrees that this can be achieved while reducing the deficit, and believes that full fiscal powers over the Scottish economy would enable Scotland to improve its sustainable economic performance and boost the revenues available for tackling inequality.”

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I commend the Labour Party for bringing the issue of the economy to the Parliament. To borrow the language of Sir Humphrey, it is courageous of Labour to wish to debate the economy. It does not want to do that at the UK level, but fair play to Scottish Labour—this is the third time that it has debated the economy, although I have to say that it has not got much better by the third time, and I am no clearer on what its alternative plan is. However, perhaps in closing, a rabbit or two will be pulled out of the Labour Party hat and we will hear what it intends to do.

Ultimately, the economy makes uncomfortable reading for the Labour Party and the SNP. Several years ago, they were loud in their chorus saying that the plan would not work and that what we were doing would not be effective at all. They said that we would have a deeper recession—I think that the Scottish Government’s prediction was a double-dip recession—but that did not happen. Last week at the budget, we heard the headline figures on the economy, which are all positive and moving in the right direction and which are projected to get better and stronger for each year of the forecast period.

To counter Mr Swinney’s point, when we compare the projections for the UK with those for our trading partners, including those in the rest of the European Union, we fare very well. To take growth as an example, in 2014, we had the highest growth in the G7. Our growth projections for 2015 were revised upwards last year by the Office for Budget Responsibility, whereas the OBR’s projections for world growth were revised downwards. The eurozone will be lucky if its growth rate hits 1 per cent in 2015.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will Mr Brown take an intervention?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will Mr Brown give way?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I will give way to the cabinet secretary first.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am grateful to Mr Brown. Does he acknowledge the strength of my point from the fact that gross domestic product per capita remains—as at the end of 2014—at nearly 2 per cent below pre-recession levels? The growth that the Chancellor of the Exchequer projected has not materialised, as a consequence of the decisions that were taken.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

The projections of 2010 did not materialise in the way that the chancellor predicted, but what he did not know and what nobody else knew was that the entire continent of Europe would be on the precipice a year later. Of course growth was delayed by two years, because there were six quarters of negative growth across Europe, with which we do almost half our trade. If the Scottish Government’s finance secretary cares to read the reports of his own chief economist, he will see that that impact is acknowledged in almost every one of those reports, which I have read.

Of course that situation was going to have an impact. It would have had an impact whether we had gone with Labour spending plans or SNP spending plans or whether we had been independent. The eurozone crisis would have affected this economy regardless of the spending plans laid out.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will Mr Brown give way?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

The Deputy First Minister was generous in giving way, so I will give way to him again.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am grateful to Mr Brown. Does that not make the case that we repeatedly made to the UK Government for an early change to the austerity agenda to invest in the economy?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

No—it does not. Having taken the difficult decisions as we did and when we did, we now find ourselves in a far better position than our European neighbours. Growth is projected to be two and a half times that of most of our competitors. We have the highest employment rate that we have ever had in this country.

The unemployment rate is still too high but, at just over 5.5 per cent, it compares very favourably with the double-digit unemployment rates in France, Italy and many other European countries. The cabinet secretary’s arguments would be fine if we were on the same page as the rest of Europe and if we were all doing well at the same time, but he has to accept and acknowledge that the UK Government’s action has achieved something positive if we are doing well and are projected to do better, whereas the countries that we compete with are not projected to do the same.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I have taken a number of interventions, so I hope that Mr Robertson will forgive me for not giving way.

That situation has not happened by accident; it has happened because of the difficult decisions that were taken earlier. It has happened because the UK Government stuck to the path. It has happened because UK businesses and the people of this country stood firm, stepped up to the plate and created jobs. That is underpinned by the UK Government’s competitive policies, whether that is on corporation tax, freezing fuel duty, raising the personal allowance or cutting national insurance.

What really grates among Conservative members is the SNP’s assertion that, somehow, if we had fiscal autonomy, there would not be austerity—that, somehow, we would be able to get rid of austerity. That is blatantly untrue. I know that Mr Swinney knows that, because he judiciously looks at all the figures. He knows—based on the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures from a couple of weeks ago, based on the figures that we are likely to see in GERS next year and based on the oil revenues that we are likely to see over the next five years or so—that, if we went for fiscal autonomy, there would have to be far deeper austerity than we have under the UK Government, whether it is Conservative or Labour.

I move amendment S4M-12776.3, to leave out from “rejects” to end and insert:

“welcomes the fact that the UK’s economic growth was the highest among the G7 economies in 2014 and notes that the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised up its forecast for UK growth in 2015; welcomes the high employment situation across the UK and the deficit being reduced by over a half since 2010; believes that measures taken by the UK Government, such as cutting employer national insurance contributions and maintaining the lowest level of corporation tax in the G7, are providing considerable benefits to Scotland’s businesses; believes that measures, such as raising the income tax personal allowance and freezing fuel duty, have helped household budgets; calls on the Scottish Government to publish an update to Outlook for Scotland’s Public Finances to take into account changes to the projected public finances since its original publication in May 2014 and to reflect the current Scottish Government policy of seeking full fiscal autonomy, and further calls on the Scottish Government to publish an updated Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin.”

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the Labour Party for calling the debate, which gives all of us in Parliament an opportunity to shine a light on the different economic plans of the parties. For me, the debate should be about economic competence and fairness. We cannot have one without the other.

It is worth reminding Parliament that the Government said that Scotland would be on the verge of a “second oil boom”, with a blossoming oil fund, more jobs and ever-increasing tax receipts. Now we face a low oil price, at half what the Government confidently predicted it would be, jobs have been slashed and tax revenues have plummeted. In fact, it has been estimated that the shortfall on the Government’s predictions is worth £155 million every day. It is worth reflecting on that, because it goes to the heart of the SNP’s competence in managing the economy. The SNP said that we would be far better off with that oil boom; the reality is something different. The GERS figures show exactly that shortfall, which is worth about £800 for every single person in this country. That is the penalty that we would have paid for independence or full fiscal autonomy. The Government’s central economic argument for independence has been found wanting.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I am interested in Willie Rennie’s point that economic competence can be determined as a result of predictions on oil price. At the time when the Scottish Government was predicting $110 per barrel, the UK Government Department of Energy and Climate Change, which is led by Mr Rennie’s colleague Edward Davey, was predicting $120 per barrel. What does that say about the economic competence of the Liberal Democrats?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mark McDonald is not comparing like with like. What that actually proves is that the economy cannot be run based simply on the big resource of oil. It is very volatile and has a big impact, making generous predictions about oil reveals how incompetent the SNP has been on oil and on the economy.

Despite the animosity that clearly exists between Jackie Baillie and John Swinney—in fact, between the whole Labour Party and SNP—there are many similarities between the two parties’ plans. Members will have heard me say before that the nationalists and Labour have said that the UK economic plan would fail; that unemployment would rise, GDP would stagnate and employment would fall. However, now, thanks to the plan from the UK Government, we have falling unemployment and higher employment, and growth is back. Despite those facts, the SNP and Labour continue to say that the plan has failed, yet the latest figures show that employment in Scotland is at a record high—up 187,000 since 2010. Growth is back, as Gavin Brown said, and the UK is vying with the United States of America to be the best among the G7 countries.

As Labour did, the SNP said that the UK’s economic plan would fail, just before the economy started to grow again. Also as Labour did, the SNP argued for lighter regulation of the banks, just before they went bust. Now, just like Labour, the SNP thinks that the answer to high levels of debt is ever more debt. The SNP and Labour were wrong on the banks, wrong on the economy and wrong on jobs, and now the SNP has the audacity to say that that is all in the past and that it is definitely right this time. It wants to borrow billions of pounds more when we should be eliminating the deficit and cutting debt. Its plans will put the economy at risk. We should not put our faith in parties that have been consistently wrong on the economy.

Even though we have over the past five years worked quite constructively with the Conservatives to get the economy back on track, we part company with them on their plans for the next five years. They want to do two things. First, as we do, they want to eliminate the deficit by 2017-18, but they want to do so with no tax rises, whereas we are planning £6 billion worth of tax rises on banks and mansions. Unlike the Conservatives, we do not believe that public services can bear the full impact of the cuts.

Secondly, once we have eliminated the deficit, we want to invest in capital works for the good of the country. The Tories disagree. I have to say that the Conservatives seem to be hell-bent on an ideological mission to reduce the size of the state, which will damage public services and take the UK back to the 1960s.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Does Willie Rennie accept that his party does not want to eliminate the deficit but just wants a current-budget balance?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We agree with the Conservatives that we should eliminate the deficit by 2017-18. That is the plan that we have, that is the £30 billion reduction that we have in place, and that is where we agree with the Conservatives. We disagree on the mix of spending and taxes that will be required to achieve that.

We reject the volatile see-saw economics of the past—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Draw to a close, please.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

—with Labour and the SNP borrowing too much, which risks the economy, and the Tories cutting too much, which threatens public services. Look at the progress we have made: we have cut taxes by £900 for workers, we have increased pensions by £900, we have got the economy back on track and we have expanded childcare for the families that need it most. That is how to balance fairness in society with getting the economy back on track. That is why people should stick with the Lib Dems.

I move amendment S4M-12776.1, to leave out from “the UK Government’s plans” to end and insert:

“a return to volatile see-saw economics, which has the potential to cause great economic damage and divert the UK economy from the employment and economic growth achieved; therefore notes with great concern the Conservatives’ ideological drive to reduce the size of the state, recklessly cutting public services on one hand, and Labour and SNP plans to borrow more, repeating the mistakes of the past and indebting future generations, on the other; believes that the SNP’s proposal to borrow £180 billion would put the hard-won economic recovery at great risk, and endorses the Liberal Democrats’ plans to balance the country’s books by 2018 and to use the benefits of the economic growth achieved by that plan to increase public expenditure in line with the economy, keeping Scotland and the UK on a steady path to prosperity.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Could you draw to a close, please?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Whichever political parties have influence in a balanced UK Parliament after May should ensure that they use that influence for the right priorities and not for those that Fergus Ewing might want, or by pushing the Government to exempt coal from carbon taxes or to bail out outdated, redundant and polluting infrastructure. Instead, let us invest in the new infrastructure and new priorities that Scotland and the UK need for the future. That would be far better than inviting in private equity or overseas Governments to build and own the country’s infrastructure on our behalf. I hope that the Scottish Government is open to that argument.

I move amendment S4M-12776.2, to leave out from “rejects” to end and insert:

“considers that the UK Government’s austerity agenda is ideologically motivated by those who seek an ever-smaller state and poorer public services as ends in themselves; deeply regrets that the main opposition party in the UK Parliament also remains committed to cuts that will have the same effect; believes that a credible alternative to austerity is available in the form of a programme of green quantitative easing (QE); recognises that, instead of creating money to rebalance balance sheets in the financial services sector, a green QE programme would provide investment in the transition to a sustainable economy; sees many benefits of such a programme, including stimulating the real economy and the creation of jobs in every constituency of the UK, more rapid progress toward social and environmental targets and localised control of economic assets instead of a privatised model of infrastructure investment; believes that Scotland’s economy needs such investment, and considers that this would complement the progress that has been made on the development of renewables and energy efficiency in Scotland.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. Speeches should be of five minutes. We are extraordinarily tight for time, so if members do not manage the time keeping, the Presiding Officers will be making cuts of our own.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

On the basis that I can keep my balance for five minutes, that is how long I intend to take.

As has been highlighted, two weeks ago the Labour Party led a debate on the economy. Sadly, I was not able to participate in it, because I had sustained an injury the previous Sunday. I was distraught to miss out on the opportunity to contribute to that debate, and I am sure that members were equally distraught. Luckily, the Labour Party has brought back a debate on the economy just for me, so that I can have the opportunity to speak on the issue.

While I might have sustained a broken leg, it is clear that the Labour Party is still acting like a broken record. Labour members continue to talk down the prospects of Scotland’s economy and its economic future in an effort to perpetuate the myth that Scotland as a nation is uniquely incapable of sustaining itself, of growing and of performing well as an economy. That does the Labour Party no service whatever, and I suspect that it might be the genesis of the reason why it is performing so spectacularly badly in opinion polling in Scotland at the moment.

I want to look at the agenda that we are putting forward on the economy. We have chosen to focus on the opportunities that exist for modest growth in public spending at a UK level, which would deliver direct benefits to Scotland and would have other benefits for the wider UK by addressing the continual cuts that are being made in public expenditure. As we know from the analysis that the IFS has undertaken, that would enable the deficit reduction projections that the Labour Party has made to be achieved while allowing us to operate within the financial envelope of increased public expenditure.

I believe that that is a win-win scenario. Deficit reduction undoubtedly needs to be tackled, but it does not need to be tackled by being made a priority ahead of everything else. That is the unfortunate position that we find ourselves in under the current UK Government, which sees reducing the deficit as the be-all and end-all, with the result that the poorest and most vulnerable in society are seen as an afterthought and a means to achieving the deficit reduction targets.

Today, the Conservatives have talked—as they often do—about the difficult decisions that have to be made. Those decisions are not difficult for Conservative ministers, because they do not tend to impact on them. They are certainly not difficult for many of the powerful corporate interests that are supportive of the Conservative Party and are quite friendly with some of its front-bench members at Westminster, because they do not impact directly on them. The people who are bearing the brunt of those difficult decisions are the poorest in society, who face regular assaults on their incomes and their way of life as a result of UK Government decisions. That is acknowledged in any analysis that is done of the impact of budget decisions by income deciles in the UK. It is those at the lower end who face significant detriment, while those at the top end face no significant detriment.

We can see that only too clearly if we look at where the focus in respect of effort, budget and rhetoric is directed between welfare—and in particular the concept of benefit fraud as it is often called—and tax avoidance. Welfare fraud should undoubtedly be tackled—I am not suggesting for one second that it should not be—but it accounts for less than £2 billion per annum. Less is lost to the Exchequer from welfare fraud than it retains through the failure of individuals to take up benefits to which they are entitled.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

You are in your final minute.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The Exchequer makes a net saving in that area.

Tax avoidance and tax evasion cost the Exchequer £30 billion to £35 billion annually, but a disproportionately higher number of staff are allocated to tackling welfare fraud compared with those who are allocated to tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance. We have a UK Government that has got its priorities 100 per cent askew on that.

We should consider the number of people who face benefit sanctions, driving them to call on the assistance of food banks. In Aberdeen, we have seen the Instant Neighbour food bank run out of supplies in recent days.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You should begin to close, please.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

We should consider that point versus the point about those who are being actively pursued and prosecuted for tax evasion. Again, we can see that the UK Government has its priorities 100 per cent askew.

There is a better way to do things. We have outlined a better way to do things, and I hope that, in May, we will have the opportunity to get on with doing things differently.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You have to close. I am afraid that there is no time available.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

While Gavin Brown and Willie Rennie pat each other on the back for where they are, it is worth remembering that we were coming out of a recession in 2010 when the Tories, with the support of the Liberals, went into government. The economy was growing following the first global banking crisis and a global recession. I put it to both parties that, as a direct result of the economic policies and the austerity measures that were then pursued, the economy did not continue to grow at the rate at which it should have grown. That is why we are not any place now.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

I have only five minutes; I am sorry.

The other key point that is worth making to the Tories in particular is that, although employment is growing, we need to look at the types of jobs that are being created in the economy. The levels of unfairness and inequality in the economy are not being tackled, with low pay and zero-hours contracts. Most workers have had to take a five-year pay freeze, in effect, while energy prices and the cost of living have continued to rise. Therefore, people are not in a really good place at this stage in terms of their budgets and moving forward.

The other big problem with Tory austerity is that it is an attack on the poor. It is not about saying that we will all take our share and that we all have to suffer equally to come out of this. The type of welfare reforms that are taking place, the sanctions and the targets that are being set for sanctions are creating absolute poverty in communities across Scotland, probably for the first time since the 1940s. That is an absolute failure of economic policy, no matter how we measure it, and it cannot be and is not right.

Mark McDonald mentioned that, rather than having a war on the poor, we should go after the tax dodgers, cheats and evaders and start to collect the billions of pounds that can be brought in to start to address the deficit. It is a fact that the Tory chancellor has not addressed the deficit. We still have major problems with the country’s debt levels. To be honest, we still have a major problem with what our economy produces and with the manufacturing base, which was destroyed in the 18 years of the previous Tory Government.

In the short time that I have, I want to speak about the policies that John Swinney and the Scottish Government are putting forward. I do not think that we are attacking with bile, as has been suggested, when we question the impact that full fiscal autonomy would have on the Scottish economy in the short to medium term.

The figure that was given in independent advice from the Scottish Parliament information centre was that the Barnett formula would mean that £6.5 billion would have to be made up from somewhere else under full fiscal autonomy. It is legitimate to ask the Deputy First Minister how we would make up that difference. I am genuinely concerned that that would result in major cuts to public services or in the need to increase taxes, which would be equally damaging to the economy. It is legitimate to ask whether full fiscal autonomy would result in deeper cuts and more job losses than we have already experienced. The Deputy First Minister has to deal with that question.

The Deputy First Minister’s amendment talks about the economy performing and starting to tackle inequalities, but I do not believe that the Government has a clear anti-poverty strategy. When I looked for one, I found that there was a framework to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland in 2008. I am told that some updates have been made to that, but I cannot measure anything to see where the outcomes have been achieved. If there is no clear anti-poverty strategy for Scotland, we will not start to tackle inequality and poverty. Those are legitimate points that should be raised with the Government.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Labour’s motion contains a number of issues, and we need to look at it in more detail. It talks about full fiscal autonomy and suggests that Scotland would be £7.6 billion worse off. That point does not hold water for a number of reasons.

The motion looks only at one year on its own, and we need to take the long-term view. We need to remember the many, many years when Scotland was subsidising the rest of the UK. When we debated the economy two weeks ago, I spoke about the failure of the UK over the longer term. I will not mention all those points again today, but some particular failures include the UK’s failure in manufacturing and the failure to grow Scotland’s population.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am not taking any interventions.

If we ask the public which party stands best for Scotland, the answer is always the Scottish National Party, even among people who do not vote for us. Some politicians want what is best for the UK as a whole, even if Scotland suffers in the process, and they are entitled to do that if they are in the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. That is not a position we will find in the SNP. No one actually believes Labour when it talks nonsense about the SNP wanting Scotland to lose out.

As long as we stay in the UK, we want a better deal for Scotland. If there is to be a hung Parliament in London after May, we want more powers but we also want more money—for example, through high-speed rail being brought to Scotland.

Westminster has clearly stated that the transfer of powers should be on a no-detriment principle. More powers for Scotland must not mean that Scotland or the UK is automatically better or worse off as a result. For all those reasons, Labour members’ suggestion that full fiscal autonomy could leave Scotland worse off is just laughable, and no one believes them.

Labour’s motion also mentions “Labour’s redistributive policy plans”. Is it really the case that Labour would redistribute wealth and income? I have a few points to make about that. Why did the previous Labour Government preside over a widening gap between rich and poor in society? Labour’s plan is to have income tax rates of between 10 and 50 per cent, which, on the surface, sounds progressive. Of course, it is not as progressive as a previous Labour Government that I remember, which took income tax rates up to 98 per cent—I think that even Labour members would accept that that is a bit extreme nowadays. At least a 50 per cent rate appears to be a step in the right direction.

We need to remember that national insurance is a factor. NI is not progressive. It starts at 12 per cent and falls to 2 per cent. According to Labour, the combined rate would start at 22 per cent and the top rate would be only 52 per cent. Can that really be described as progressive? I do not think so. Will Labour increase the 2 per cent NI contribution for high earners, including MSPs? We can argue for or against higher income tax rates and higher NI contributions, but a combined top rate of 52 per cent cannot be called progressive, and 22 per cent is still too high a hurdle for low earners.

If we are serious about redistribution, surely we have to look at redistributing wealth, and not just income. Inheritance tax is the obvious player here, although we have also had capital transfer tax. It is very difficult for Labour to claim to be progressive or redistributive when its motion makes no mention of redistributing wealth.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Overall, it seems that we would see little more redistribution under a future Labour Government than we saw under the previous one.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am not taking any interventions.

All of that leads me to wonder how the public view Labour. Is it seen as a progressive party with redistributive policies, and if not, why not? If we look back to last September and the referendum, we can see that something seems to have changed then.

Rightly or wrongly, many people saw the referendum as being about whether we wanted a fairer society. Clearly, many richer people voted no because they did not want a fairer and more equal society in which they might lose out. Many poorer people voted yes, not because they had some romantic idea about Scotland and not even because they thought that Scotland as a whole would be better off, but because they thought that, even if the cake was a little smaller, it would be shared out more fairly and equally. I therefore suggest that it is because Labour sided last September with the rich, with the status quo, with unfairness and with inequality, and because it campaigned against fairness and equality, that it is now suffering in the polls.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must draw to a close, please.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Labour can wheel out fine words such as “progressive” and “redistributive”, but people saw last September what it really meant. It was against those things, and people will not support Labour.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

John Mason did his argument no favours, glossing over the facts and spending most of his speech dealing with politics and parties and not with supporting Scotland’s economy, which is the subject of the motion.

A lot of statistics have been exchanged this afternoon, and at times my head spins as the parties opposite try to provide views on how Scotland and the UK in general are moving forward. In that context, I am loth to add any additional statistics, but I will mention a few. Jackie Baillie alluded to the wealth and assets survey that was published yesterday, but I do not think that the full impact has been brought to the Parliament’s attention. It says that 10 per cent of households own 74 per cent of financial wealth in Scotland and that that same 10 per cent have 55 per cent of the pension wealth and 43 per cent of the property wealth. Can it possibly be right, in a 21st century Scotland, that those statistics can appear in our national newspapers and we do not have a sense of social injustice? We need to take steps to move forward instead of marking time with good words and constant referrals to statistics that are meaningless.

I received another set of statistics today that adds to our fund of knowledge. The latest UK business register employment survey shows that many districts in Scotland lost jobs between 2009 and 2013. In East Ayrshire, 3,000 jobs were lost; in East Renfrewshire, 700 jobs were lost; in Glasgow, 24,500 were lost; and so on. Those were real jobs that offered a real purpose in life and represented an opportunity to develop an economy within a family. They gave people meaning and purpose, they created a distance between daily life and poverty, and they offered people a future contributing to the wellbeing of Scotland.

Much has been said about what the Labour Party is contributing in moving forward. We have said that we believe that energy costs should be capped and that we would raise living standards, initially by increasing the minimum wage to £8 an hour. We have introduced the idea that every young person aged 18 or 19 who leaves school and goes straight into work should have £1,600 allocated to them to help with training, tools and start-up costs for business. We have indicated that we believe that we should move forward on balancing the books and introduce a mansion tax in order that we can begin to shift wealth from those who have to those who have not. We would see 24 million working people being relieved of the burden of much of the tax that they face by the creation of a 10p starting rate for tax.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member give way?