Chamber
Plenary, 13 Feb 2003
13 Feb 2003 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill: Stage 3
As the member knows, the Executive is committed to the current constitutional settlement. He timed his intervention beautifully to allow me to move on to the fact that a week is a long time in politics for Opposition parties. For the next 10 weeks, the case that I imagine Alasdair Morgan will make is for the right to govern Scotland, interest rates included.
What have we learned about the SNP's budget proposals in the past week? Members will recall that, in the 1970s, the SNP bandwagon stalled because, suddenly, people in Scotland realised that the SNP was all things to all people. In the past four years, we have heard from the Opposition that all that has changed. We should review that in the light of the past week.
Last Friday, Andrew "Gizza job" Wilson, who is not here—perhaps he is looking for a job now—announced that he agrees with "A Smart, Successful Scotland". It is more than two years since the document was published, but we welcome all converts, even late ones.
The SNP's only difference on enterprise policy is that it wants to cut £150 million from the enterprise budget. No other budgets would face cuts from that pro-enterprise party, but £150 million will be slashed from the enterprise budget by amalgamating local enterprise companies. Members with long memories will remember that, sometimes, the SNP has trouble with its arithmetic—calculators and all that—so this morning, I read Scottish Enterprise's operating plan. It has a total administration budget of £90 million and the LECs have a total administration budget of £40 million. We can assume that if the LECs are amalgamated, half the LEC admin budget will be saved—a princely £20 million. That means that the SNP has to find another £130 million to fund its promised 1 per cent cut in public spending.
I have good news for the SNP—it can manage that. If the SNP were to cut Careers Scotland in its entirety, along with every single one of the 25,000 modern apprenticeships, and if it were to cancel all the institutes of technology, that would get the figure up to £128 million. The SNP would still have to find another £2 million, but perhaps Brian Adam will enlighten us in his closing speech. Today's debate is a chance for the SNP finance team to tell the chamber where the money will come from. Those of us on the coalition benches will hound the SNP at every business breakfast up and down the country until we have the answer.
If a week was a long time in politics for Andrew Wilson, what about John Swinney on Thursday, parading the fact that the SNP is opposed to public-private partnerships? The SNP tells the private sector that it can be involved in building Scotland's infrastructure only on a not-for-profit basis; I am sure that that will have the shareholders queuing up.
The SNP finance spokespeople should do their duty today and tell the chamber which of the contracts that are currently under negotiation—I am thinking of the PPPs for all the schools in Edinburgh or Renfrewshire or the PPP for the primary schools in Glasgow—will be cancelled under its plans, or whether its convictions of today will be casually discarded in the weeks ahead.
When it comes to a week being a long time in politics, the SNP's third finance proposal of the past week was made as recently as Tuesday. Kenny MacAskill announced the re-nationalisation of all of the train companies' operating assets on, and I quote, a "cost neutral" basis—300 trains and sleepers for free?
It has been a revealing week when it comes to opposition politics. The only budget that the SNP proposes to cut is the enterprise budget. The SNP is going to cancel PFI schemes up and down the country and re-nationalise ScotRail without compensation. Is that a pro-enterprise agenda? The SNP is not pro-enterprise; it is simply pro-promises. It is every bit as much all things to all people today as it was 30 years ago. The SNP has already proposed one public spending cut to the enterprise budget. If it were to tell the truth, how many more cuts would follow?
The coalition will not cut spending to punish the poor. We will not cut public spending to curry favour with this or that group in Scotland. The SNP tells us that it wants to be a grown-up party and that it wants to show fiscal prudence and financial responsibility. I say to the SNP that, in 5 minutes' time, it should take its chance to be a grown-up party.
I would like the SNP to tell me how, with the one cut that it has promised to make in public spending—which happens to be in the enterprise budget—it will pay for everything. So far, the SNP has told the chamber how it will pay for £20 million. I look forward to hearing about the rest.
What have we learned about the SNP's budget proposals in the past week? Members will recall that, in the 1970s, the SNP bandwagon stalled because, suddenly, people in Scotland realised that the SNP was all things to all people. In the past four years, we have heard from the Opposition that all that has changed. We should review that in the light of the past week.
Last Friday, Andrew "Gizza job" Wilson, who is not here—perhaps he is looking for a job now—announced that he agrees with "A Smart, Successful Scotland". It is more than two years since the document was published, but we welcome all converts, even late ones.
The SNP's only difference on enterprise policy is that it wants to cut £150 million from the enterprise budget. No other budgets would face cuts from that pro-enterprise party, but £150 million will be slashed from the enterprise budget by amalgamating local enterprise companies. Members with long memories will remember that, sometimes, the SNP has trouble with its arithmetic—calculators and all that—so this morning, I read Scottish Enterprise's operating plan. It has a total administration budget of £90 million and the LECs have a total administration budget of £40 million. We can assume that if the LECs are amalgamated, half the LEC admin budget will be saved—a princely £20 million. That means that the SNP has to find another £130 million to fund its promised 1 per cent cut in public spending.
I have good news for the SNP—it can manage that. If the SNP were to cut Careers Scotland in its entirety, along with every single one of the 25,000 modern apprenticeships, and if it were to cancel all the institutes of technology, that would get the figure up to £128 million. The SNP would still have to find another £2 million, but perhaps Brian Adam will enlighten us in his closing speech. Today's debate is a chance for the SNP finance team to tell the chamber where the money will come from. Those of us on the coalition benches will hound the SNP at every business breakfast up and down the country until we have the answer.
If a week was a long time in politics for Andrew Wilson, what about John Swinney on Thursday, parading the fact that the SNP is opposed to public-private partnerships? The SNP tells the private sector that it can be involved in building Scotland's infrastructure only on a not-for-profit basis; I am sure that that will have the shareholders queuing up.
The SNP finance spokespeople should do their duty today and tell the chamber which of the contracts that are currently under negotiation—I am thinking of the PPPs for all the schools in Edinburgh or Renfrewshire or the PPP for the primary schools in Glasgow—will be cancelled under its plans, or whether its convictions of today will be casually discarded in the weeks ahead.
When it comes to a week being a long time in politics, the SNP's third finance proposal of the past week was made as recently as Tuesday. Kenny MacAskill announced the re-nationalisation of all of the train companies' operating assets on, and I quote, a "cost neutral" basis—300 trains and sleepers for free?
It has been a revealing week when it comes to opposition politics. The only budget that the SNP proposes to cut is the enterprise budget. The SNP is going to cancel PFI schemes up and down the country and re-nationalise ScotRail without compensation. Is that a pro-enterprise agenda? The SNP is not pro-enterprise; it is simply pro-promises. It is every bit as much all things to all people today as it was 30 years ago. The SNP has already proposed one public spending cut to the enterprise budget. If it were to tell the truth, how many more cuts would follow?
The coalition will not cut spending to punish the poor. We will not cut public spending to curry favour with this or that group in Scotland. The SNP tells us that it wants to be a grown-up party and that it wants to show fiscal prudence and financial responsibility. I say to the SNP that, in 5 minutes' time, it should take its chance to be a grown-up party.
I would like the SNP to tell me how, with the one cut that it has promised to make in public spending—which happens to be in the enterprise budget—it will pay for everything. So far, the SNP has told the chamber how it will pay for £20 million. I look forward to hearing about the rest.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill. There being no amendments to the bill, we will move straight to the ...
Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP):
SNP
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is stage 3 of the bill, and we had the stage 2 debate in committee on Tuesday this week. I wanted to refer in my...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The answer is yes, it is proper so to do. It is not a matter of standing orders that the information should be available from the earlier Official Report. It...
Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab):
Lab
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for the Presiding Officer to make comments about what will or will not be in any political party's man...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
It was probably somewhat partial, so I should not have said it. I call Peter Peacock.
The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services (Peter Peacock):
Lab
This debate marks the final stage of this year's budget process. I should probably pause for cheers at that point, at least from all the finance spokesmen ar...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
I refer the minister to page 143 of "Scotland's Budget Documents 2003-04", which mentions Highlands and Islands Enterprise and digital connectivity. It shows...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
I am happy to reassure Stewart Stevenson that he has no reason to be concerned about such matters. The budget and our future spending plans provide for a dra...
Mrs Margaret Ewing (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister take an intervention?
Peter Peacock:
Lab
I would like to finish what I am saying.On the second point that Stewart Stevenson made, significant progress is being made more widely in the Highlands and ...
Mrs Ewing:
SNP
I certainly hope that the legislation will be enabling legislation. The linkage into broadband must be emphasised. There cannot be linkage if there are no li...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
I think that it will, as the strategy that HIE is rightly pursuing is one of targeting advertising in particular locales, so that expressions of interest are...
Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP):
SNP
I know that this is stage 3, but for some of us it feels like stage 93.I have said before that I think that the budget documents are becoming much more helpf...
Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
In the spirit of the debate, I, too, will refer back to the discussion that the Finance Committee had on Tuesday. I have been on the committee since the begi...
Alasdair Morgan:
SNP
I listen to what David Davidson says with interest. However, presumably, if the collection and late payment rates stay roughly the same, the cash flow stays ...
Mr Davidson:
Con
Collection rates are assumed. The Minister for Finance and Public Services has told us that. Andy Kerr has also said that he is disappointed at the collectio...
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in support of the bill. The budget delivers strong growth for public services such as health and edu...
Mr Davidson:
Con
I think that Mr Rumbles missed a point that I made on priorities.
Mr Rumbles:
LD
Oh no I did not.
Mr Davidson:
Con
Our priorities are more about spending on infrastructure than the Executive parties' are. We have said what the figures are. That is only one example of how ...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
David Davidson cons only himself with such comments. I refer to what he said in his speech. I wrote it down. He talked about poor council tax collection rate...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member acknowledge that the Arbuthnott formula and some of the other financial strictures that have applied to the NHS in Grampian in recent years h...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
The Arbuthnott formula is only just kicking in at the moment. I am more concerned about what happens from now on, which is what we should focus on.
Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab):
Lab
Will Mr Rumbles give way?
Mr Rumbles:
LD
I will in a minute, but I have just taken an intervention.
Dr Simpson:
Lab
It is on that point.
Mr Rumbles:
LD
Later on. The easy way to end postcode prescribing is to ensure a level playing field in NHS funding across the country. It cannot be right that access to NH...
Dr Simpson:
Lab
Does Mr Rumbles agree that life expectancy in Glasgow—which is not of course my area—is substantially lower than it is in his constituency, that unemployment...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
Here we come to the nub of the question. I am glad that Richard Simpson intervened to make that point, which illustrates the argument over what the Arbuthnot...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
Will Mr Rumbles give way?