Rhoda Grant MSP

Rhoda Grant MSP

Speech in the debate on the Scottish Government’s Budget

21 September 2011

I have enjoyed listening to the debate and I agree with many people who have stated that this settlement is wrong.

We need to invest to grow our economy.

Yesterday, following some of the mood music coming out of Westminster, it seemed that that had been recognised and, hopefully, we will benefit from a plan B.

However, the SNP Government knew what the settlement was when it wrote its manifesto and it is our job, as the Opposition, to hold it to that.

A huge number of issues have been touched on today and I want to touch on a couple that have not been covered before turning to the debate.

The first is the next-generation digital fund, for which there is no new money.

I have been asking for a figure for the fund for a number of months.

The figure of £50 million was mentioned in the manifesto and I would have expected that to be used to lever in EU funding.

I see nothing new today, which is disappointing, because we need to invest in our digital infrastructure.

In the Highlands and Islands alone, it will cost £300 million to bring superfast broadband to all our communities.

By delivering superfast broadband to our communities, we also deliver savings because services can be delivered through it.

It is a spend-to-save commitment and I hope the cabinet secretary will force other public bodies to look at how they use their infrastructure to deliver that.

Another pet project of mine is the land fund.

During the election campaign, Richard Lochhead made a commitment to re-establish the Scottish land fund, but I cannot find any mention of it in this document.

I have not read it line by line, so it may be there; if it is, I would welcome that commitment being brought forward in the minister.s winding-up speech.

We also need clarification on public sector pensions.

In his opening speech, the cabinet secretary said that, if he is forced to, he will increase employee pension contributions where required by the Westminster Government.

He mentioned the teachers pensions scheme in that regard, but my understanding is that increasing contributions for that scheme is a matter for COSLA to implement.

It is also my understanding that COSLA is not willing to do that.

How will the cabinet secretary force it to do that—will he legislate or instruct it to carry out those changes?

Funding for Scottish Water has been reduced, with worrying consequences, as the document admits.

That will have an impact on infrastructure and the economy.

The Government said previously that it was looking to allow Scottish Water to raise funds through the development of renewables.

However, I cannot find anything in the document on this matter and information would be helpful.

We read today that 12,000 houses in Glasgow were affected by high aluminium levels in water and that 17 recommendations have been made to prevent that from happening again.

How can they be implemented if there are cuts of £120 million?

Clarification is needed on the Tesco tax, which has been reintroduced in this budget.

The cabinet secretary talked about £500 million being invested in a preventative spending initiative.

It is not clear if all that money will be raised by the tax, nor is it clear how it will be shared between local authorities, NHS boards and the third sector.

Will the money be ring fenced for preventative measures?

When this proposal was made in the previous session, we realised that the devil was in the detail.

Has the Government consulted properly and is it clear that it is in a position to bring forward such a policy?

It would be interesting to hear the detail of that.

Once again, there has been a cut in housing and regeneration funding.

I understand that Shelter has described it as a "devastating" blow.

The manifesto promised 30,000 social rented houses over the next session, but it is difficult to see how that can be delivered with funding being cut by almost £100 million over the next year alone, and falling further.

Housing is important not just for those seeking it but for the economy.

The construction industry is totally dependent on house building, as are those who live in fuel poverty and those who are homeless.

It is difficult to see how the Government can meet its commitments and manifesto promises with such a cut in the budget.

Another promise was that there would be no compulsory redundancies, but it is difficult to see how the Government can deliver on that.

I am certainly aware that, instead of people being made redundant, their hours are being cut.

For example, many home carers are low-paid women who work part-time, but they have had their hours cut. Providing home carers is preventative spending.

If home care fails in the community, the cost falls on acute care in the NHS, which is much more expensive.

The Government needs to oversee the impact of cuts to ensure that that does not happen, because it would mean an increased cost in real terms.

The Government has pledged to protect front-line services, but it must ensure that it does so in reality.

I turn to issues that were raised in the debate.

Obviously, health is hugely important.

Jackie Baillie pointed out that we lost 1,500 nurses last year and will lose another 1,000 this year.

The Government promised that health spending and health budgets would be protected through consequentials. Again, though, I believe that it will be difficult for the Government to keep that promise.

We proposed a single care service, which would have built in savings and efficiencies. I recommend that the Government revisit that proposal.

On local authorities—and this impacts on job losses in front-line services—will the council tax freeze be fully funded? What will happen to the additional costs of borrowing that will fall on councils?

I agree that we should raise capital spending as much as possible to create jobs and develop infrastructure, but we cannot let the cost of that fall on councils, which are then forced to fund front-line services.

John Mason touched on the living wage and I was slightly bemused by that, because I understood that it was Government policy to provide a living wage in the public sector and possibly introduce a procurement bill that would provide it in the private sector for those who contract to Government.

However, that appears to be missing from the spending review document.

John Mason: Will the member give way?

Rhoda Grant: I am in my last minute.

Another significant piece missing from the spending review is the funding for the independence referendum.

I may have missed it, although I went through the document in some detail and could not find it.

I would have thought that it would have been up there in lights, but it does not appear to be.

It is maybe buried in the detail.

Maybe the Government has seen sense and decided to ditch it.

It is difficult to complain about spending levels when advocating further cuts in spending through lowering corporation tax, so the Government must be careful about how it deals with that.

The SNP knew what the bottom line was when it wrote its manifesto.

Those were not fantasy figures and we must hold the SNP to its promises to the Scottish people, because they delivered the SNP a majority to deliver on the promises.