Wendy Alexander MSPPaisley North
Budget speech
Wednesday, 26th January 2005I want to dwell on the issue that has come to dominate the debate—the fact that neither the Scottish Tories nor the SNP has produced even the bare bones of a budget proposal.
I accept wholly Fergus Ewing’s point that it is unreasonable to expect every detail to have been finalised; however, with £25 billion at their disposal, surely they could have come up with something.
We might ponder that question today in particular.
I ask members to recall that, just three hours ago, at First Minister’s question time, both the SNP and the Tories were worried about the UK Parliament trespassing on the Scottish Parliament’s areas of responsibility for one family in one place who occasionally come to Scotland, yet here we are, three hours later, discussing spending plans that will affect every Scottish family in every single community on every single day of the year, and the silence is deafening.
To be fair, Brian Monteith commended to us Oliver Letwin’s plans.
It is fair to say that Oliver Letwin has not been tiptoeing or trespassing on Scottish plans; he has been like a rampaging elephant.
My colleague, Des McNulty, took a significant intervention from Brian Monteith on that, when he said that we would get the Barnett consequentials of Oliver Letwin’s plans.
Of course, the Barnett consequentials of £35 billion of cuts is £3.5 billion of cuts.
Therefore, it is perhaps not a surprise that we have heard not a squeak from the Sewel-sensitive Scottish Tories about where those cuts will fall in Scotland.
Mr Monteith: Will the member explain why the £23 billion of efficiency gains that Gordon Brown talks about are not sold as cuts, but the £35 billion of efficiency gains that Oliver Letwin talks about are sold as cuts? Both figures are clearly based on the same analysis and both are efficiency gains.
Ms Alexander: Tempting as it is for me to enter into the efficient Government debate; I will resist for once and come to the central question that I want to pose to the Tories.
The biggest item in the budget that we are debating today is the Scottish health service.
In that item, the Tories have a big idea that we are going to introduce health vouchers worth half of the cost of treatment.
Of course, such a health voucher is only any use if the person using it can afford to top it up.
No wonder that even Brian “free market” Monteith is frightened to go out and argue that the Tories’ central budget proposal is to destroy 50 years of consensus about health care being dependent not on the size of a person’s bank balance but on their need.
I turn to the SNP.
This morning, the SNP was also sounding off about Sewel trespassing, but there has been no SNP budget, not even from another place.
It is all so different from 15 years ago when, like snowdrops in spring, one could rely on there being an SNP budget.
Those with good memories will remember the refrain “Everybody else fiddles the figures but not the SNP.”
The only problem was that eventually the SNP could not find one independent commentator who would put their name to an SNP budget that tried to spend the oil first to balance the books and then all over again to have a nest egg.
Much better than spending the oil money twice was to jump on the bandwagon of an issue of public concern, preferably one that could be blamed on another place, such as pensions.
It is much better to bleat than to face the tough choices that budgets bring.
The Executive has brought forward a budget that balances the books, boosts services and promotes economic growth.
I commend it to the chamber. want to dwell on the issue that has come to dominate the debate-the fact that neither the Scottish Tories nor the SNP has produced even the bare bones of a budget proposal. I accept wholly Fergus Ewing’s point that it is unreasonable to expect every detail to have been finalised; however, with £25 billion at their disposal, surely they could have come up with something.
We might ponder that question today in particular.
I ask members to recall that, just three hours ago, at First Minister’s question time, both the SNP and the Tories were worried about the UK Parliament trespassing on the Scottish Parliament’s areas of responsibility for one family in one place who occasionally come to Scotland, yet here we are, three hours later, discussing spending plans that will affect every Scottish family in every single community on every single day of the year, and the silence is deafening.
To be fair, Brian Monteith commended to us Oliver Letwin’s plans.
It is fair to say that Oliver Letwin has not been tiptoeing or trespassing on Scottish plans; he has been like a rampaging elephant.
My colleague, Des McNulty, took a significant intervention from Brian Monteith on that, when he said that we would get the Barnett consequentials of Oliver Letwin’s plans.
Of course, the Barnett consequentials of £35 billion of cuts is £3.5 billion of cuts.
Therefore, it is perhaps not a surprise that we have heard not a squeak from the Sewel-sensitive Scottish Tories about where those cuts will fall in Scotland.
Mr Monteith: Will the member explain why the £23 billion of efficiency gains that Gordon Brown talks about are not sold as cuts, but the £35 billion of efficiency gains that Oliver Letwin talks about are sold as cuts? Both figures are clearly based on the same analysis and both are efficiency gains.
Ms Alexander: Tempting as it is for me to enter into the efficient Government debate; I will resist for once and come to the central question that I want to pose to the Tories.
The biggest item in the budget that we are debating today is the Scottish health service.
In that item, the Tories have a big idea that we are going to introduce health vouchers worth half of the cost of treatment.
Of course, such a health voucher is only any use if the person using it can afford to top it up.
No wonder that even Brian “free market” Monteith is frightened to go out and argue that the Tories’ central budget proposal is to destroy 50 years of consensus about health care being dependent not on the size of a person’s bank balance but on their need.
I turn to the SNP.
This morning, the SNP was also sounding off about Sewel trespassing, but there has been no SNP budget, not even from another place.
It is all so different from 15 years ago when, like snowdrops in spring, one could rely on there being an SNP budget.
Those with good memories will remember the refrain “Everybody else fiddles the figures but not the SNP.”
The only problem was that eventually the SNP could not find one independent commentator who would put their name to an SNP budget that tried to spend the oil first to balance the books and then all over again to have a nest egg.
Much better than spending the oil money twice was to jump on the bandwagon of an issue of public concern, preferably one that could be blamed on another place, such as pensions.
It is much better to bleat than to face the tough choices that budgets bring.
The Executive has brought forward a budget that balances the books, boosts services and promotes economic growth.
I commend it to the chamber.