0:00:07 > 0:00:10Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: A fair deal budget doing an
0:00:10 > 0:00:12excellent job in difficult circumstances? Or savage cuts and
0:00:12 > 0:00:15financial sleight of hand? John Swinney's announcements made
0:00:15 > 0:00:21one thing absolutely clear - public sector pay will be frozen for
0:00:21 > 0:00:25another year. He has promised rises after that. I will be asking him
0:00:25 > 0:00:28whether that means real rises that compensate for inflation.
0:00:28 > 0:00:31Good evening. So, Scotland has a budget and a spending plan, and
0:00:31 > 0:00:34this year there will be no squabbling or horse trading to make
0:00:34 > 0:00:36sure it gets passed by Parliament. But that doesn't make it
0:00:36 > 0:00:39uncontroversial. The frozen pay in your pocket will continue to lose
0:00:39 > 0:00:43value, if you work for the public sector, and some public services
0:00:43 > 0:00:45are set to take a direct hit. But there's no change to free
0:00:45 > 0:00:50prescriptions, personal care or bus travel, and council tax remains
0:00:50 > 0:01:00frozen too. So who suffers, and who gains? We will hear from John
0:01:00 > 0:01:00
0:01:00 > 0:01:05Swinney shortly. The message from the streets
0:01:05 > 0:01:10outside the Scottish Parliament was crystal clear: The back granted
0:01:10 > 0:01:14today's Budget announcement was beyond doubt. The SNP says
0:01:14 > 0:01:21Westminster is imposing a budget cut of 3.3 billion over the next
0:01:21 > 0:01:26three years. The Finance Secretary wants to switch �750 million away
0:01:26 > 0:01:32from the day-to-day spending to fund capital investment. The road
0:01:32 > 0:01:38improvements budget is to fall from 24 million to �14 million. While
0:01:38 > 0:01:45the SNP insists they a protection the NHS budget, nursing costs are
0:01:45 > 0:01:51set to fall. -- they are protecting. Mr Swinney said careful stewardship
0:01:52 > 0:02:01had delivered efficiency savings of �2.2 billion since the SNP came to
0:02:02 > 0:02:16
0:02:16 > 0:02:22power in 2007. Many areas lay For the purposes... For the
0:02:22 > 0:02:26purposes of this spending review, we must work within the existing
0:02:26 > 0:02:36financial and constitutional framework. The Finance Secretary
0:02:36 > 0:02:42would extend the public sector pay freeze for another year. With
0:02:42 > 0:02:47additional resources to maintain teaching employment, we will need a
0:02:47 > 0:02:52programme of public service reform. It will reshape, integrate and
0:02:52 > 0:03:02deliver better services to those who use them. Ministers will also
0:03:02 > 0:03:12be freezing their own pay in 2012- 13. My aim is that 20 top-13 will
0:03:12 > 0:03:15
0:03:15 > 0:03:19be the last of a pay freeze, -- 2012-13. I propose that the
0:03:19 > 0:03:26business rates paid by large retailers of tobacco and alcohol
0:03:26 > 0:03:32will be increased by a supplement from 1st April, 2012. This is the
0:03:32 > 0:03:36first SNP budget as majority government. Commitments made at the
0:03:36 > 0:03:41election were made at a full mortgage of what they budget would
0:03:41 > 0:03:49be. This is their responsibility, and the Scottish government cannot
0:03:49 > 0:03:53pass the buck for the decision they have made today. There has been no
0:03:53 > 0:04:00rabbit out of the hat today for Mr Swinney, and there is a great deal
0:04:00 > 0:04:04of pain for our economy and many people in our society. Others were
0:04:04 > 0:04:11looking for sleight of hand, not least in local authority funding
0:04:11 > 0:04:17and the council tax free is. maintains that level of funding,
0:04:17 > 0:04:26but Ed one looks in the Scottish government's own document, it does
0:04:26 > 0:04:36not maintain it at all. -- but if one. If the funding is constant, in
0:04:36 > 0:04:36
0:04:36 > 0:04:41cash terms, that is what I said to Parliament a few moments ago. He
0:04:41 > 0:04:46had showed it would draw that rubbish he has just communicated! -
0:04:46 > 0:04:50- we can draw. One thing you cannot said that the UK government is that
0:04:50 > 0:04:55they're taking a short-term approach. They are looking to the
0:04:55 > 0:04:59long-term, to get public services in a sustainable shape for the
0:05:00 > 0:05:05future. I think it is unfortunate that the SNP government have sought
0:05:05 > 0:05:11to dodge and delay, endlessly, over the last period. And even today, we
0:05:11 > 0:05:18don't know the detail of how it will impact. It is already clear
0:05:18 > 0:05:25public service workers are paying a high price. Public sector workers
0:05:25 > 0:05:33will be rightly angry at the scene at their paying conditions
0:05:33 > 0:05:42undermined. -- at seeing. These difficult times offered a chance
0:05:42 > 0:05:47for society to have a rethink. Spending is essential, to reduce
0:05:47 > 0:05:52the harsh effects of the spending cuts, and in the longer terms, read
0:05:52 > 0:05:58calibrate the expectations of our citizens as regards how much the
0:05:58 > 0:06:02country will do for them. -- re calibrate.
0:06:02 > 0:06:08The Scottish government's proposal is not as detailed as the Red Book
0:06:08 > 0:06:18of the UK equivalent. However, there are two under and 67 pages
0:06:18 > 0:06:19
0:06:19 > 0:06:23here, -- 267 pages. They will be comparing what it says in here with
0:06:23 > 0:06:26the draft budget. The Earlier this evening, the Finance
0:06:26 > 0:06:29Secretary came into our Dundee studio. I put it to him that he
0:06:29 > 0:06:39planned to freeze public sector pay next year, but not the year after
0:06:39 > 0:06:42
0:06:42 > 0:06:49that. So what would happen then? What I have made clear it is that
0:06:49 > 0:06:55my aim is to move the modest pay increases from 2013 onwards. By
0:06:55 > 0:07:00stress they would have to be modest pay increases, because the public
0:07:00 > 0:07:03spending position it does not improve over the spending review.
0:07:03 > 0:07:09But it does improve enough to recognise the public sector workers
0:07:09 > 0:07:16have suffered a quite some time. We need to start to increase public
0:07:16 > 0:07:21sector pay in general. What does modest mien? When it comes to
0:07:21 > 0:07:25allocations of funds you get from London, you are quick to point out
0:07:25 > 0:07:32that an increase below inflation is in fact a cut? Argues saying he
0:07:32 > 0:07:40will guarantee that public sector workers will get a pay increase? --
0:07:40 > 0:07:46argues saying. I couldn't give that guarantee, no. What I am saying is
0:07:46 > 0:07:54that my aim is to get us away from the pay freeze situation at the end
0:07:54 > 0:07:58of 2012-13. I can't give you a definitive answer today as to what
0:07:58 > 0:08:08a modest pay increase looks like, but it is my aim to move in that
0:08:08 > 0:08:11
0:08:11 > 0:08:16direction. Not equivalent to inflation is not a pay increase.
0:08:16 > 0:08:21appreciate the pressures of inflation. I said my concern over
0:08:21 > 0:08:29some decisions we have had to take in the face of the UK government's
0:08:29 > 0:08:33position, particularly on pension contributions. We have to move
0:08:33 > 0:08:38forward in this question in a sustainable way, and the government
0:08:38 > 0:08:44has signalled that we have a period of more constrained, but we want to
0:08:45 > 0:08:52move with flexibility. If you are to get your staff to go along with
0:08:52 > 0:09:00this, they might be prepared if they had some prospect of at least
0:09:00 > 0:09:03a pay increase of some sort above- inflation in 2013-14. But you are
0:09:03 > 0:09:08saying they will be a pay freeze this year and next, and will give
0:09:08 > 0:09:15you some cash increases, but not enough to avoid that being another
0:09:15 > 0:09:22pay cut in the year after that. Who knows what will happen to
0:09:22 > 0:09:26inflation? This should be looked at in the current context. Members of
0:09:26 > 0:09:34staff and the public sector are experiencing a freeze in their
0:09:34 > 0:09:39basic pay. I do not see public sector workers failing to co-
0:09:39 > 0:09:46operate in some of the reforms that were taken forward and in the
0:09:46 > 0:09:54delivery of public services. People expect, reluctantly, that this is
0:09:54 > 0:09:58not the direction I would like to take. We need to constrain the
0:09:58 > 0:10:04public sector pay bill. It strikes me that members of staff are co-
0:10:04 > 0:10:12operating very effectively. There is a question of fairness here. For
0:10:12 > 0:10:21example, public sector workers, or a public sector worker whose job is
0:10:21 > 0:10:31to process council tax forms. Why is it fair that they should have to
0:10:31 > 0:10:32
0:10:32 > 0:10:36pay... Have their pay cut? While the rich person in a large house,
0:10:37 > 0:10:43whose council tax bills is being processed, does not pay any extra
0:10:43 > 0:10:47tax at all? The biggest impact of the council tax freeze is
0:10:47 > 0:10:56disproportionate on those on low income is. But you could have
0:10:56 > 0:11:03banded it. You could have put up council tax on higher bands. But is
0:11:03 > 0:11:10rather simplistic. You will find people on low incomes living in
0:11:10 > 0:11:15higher bandied houses. You will also find other well-off people
0:11:15 > 0:11:23living in very big houses, and effectively paying no extra tax,
0:11:23 > 0:11:30what you are asking other people to take pay cuts. But that is one of
0:11:30 > 0:11:34the unfairness is of the council tax system. The more general
0:11:34 > 0:11:41question after all of this is that the government has set out an
0:11:41 > 0:11:45approach which we call the social wage, about recognising a time of
0:11:45 > 0:11:52pay constraint. There are other things the government puts in place,
0:11:52 > 0:11:58whether the council tax freeze, or prescription charges, or the free
0:11:58 > 0:12:03access to higher education, which we have reaffirmed. These are all
0:12:03 > 0:12:09part of the social wage we put in place to ensure that those who are
0:12:09 > 0:12:18making sacrifices have access to some benefits on the other. The �70
0:12:18 > 0:12:23million a year for councils, if they agree, that appears to be part
0:12:23 > 0:12:28of the fast cash settlement again. They are facing a cut of about 3%,
0:12:28 > 0:12:33I reckon. What you are saying to councils is, we will cut your
0:12:33 > 0:12:38budgets, but we will cut the more if you do not go along with the
0:12:38 > 0:12:48council tax freeze. That is right, isn't it? We are saying to councils
0:12:48 > 0:12:50
0:12:50 > 0:12:58that the availability of the �70 million is conditional. It is a �70
0:12:58 > 0:13:02-- �70 million sum of money councils are prepared to freeze.
0:13:02 > 0:13:10There are constraints in public expenditure, Gordon. And what the
0:13:10 > 0:13:20government is doing, is provide a local government with a larger
0:13:20 > 0:13:20
0:13:20 > 0:13:24share of the revenue budget. Comparatively speaking, it is a
0:13:24 > 0:13:33very fair settlement. But the money you allocated was supposed to make
0:13:33 > 0:13:37sure that council tax payers did not suffer. But in fact, whether or
0:13:37 > 0:13:47not councils put up council tax, council services will get worse
0:13:47 > 0:13:49
0:13:49 > 0:13:52because you are cutting their No, because one of the other aspect
0:13:52 > 0:13:55of the budget is dramatically shifting the emphasis of public
0:13:55 > 0:13:59expenditure in favour of preventative spending. There are
0:13:59 > 0:14:03new channels of funding which will be available which are about
0:14:03 > 0:14:06encouraging institutional co- operation in public service
0:14:06 > 0:14:10delivery in the area of preventative spending, and that
0:14:10 > 0:14:13clearly is going to involve local authorities in some of that work.
0:14:13 > 0:14:18So it is not enough to look at the local government settlement in
0:14:18 > 0:14:22itself. There are a variety of other streams of funding that make
0:14:22 > 0:14:26a real difference. Are you still arguing seriously that given the
0:14:26 > 0:14:32cuts, I take no point about other money, but the budgets are being
0:14:32 > 0:14:36cut this year, that local authorities can make pledges of no
0:14:36 > 0:14:41compulsory redundancies given what you have done today? I think there
0:14:41 > 0:14:45are local authorities that have been commitments are no compulsory
0:14:45 > 0:14:48redundancies, the Scottish borders Council is one that comes to mind,
0:14:48 > 0:14:53and we would certainly encourage that dialogue at local level. I
0:14:53 > 0:14:56cannot impose that, and it would be wrong for me to impose it. I
0:14:56 > 0:15:00certainly would encourage local authorities to embark on that
0:15:00 > 0:15:04course of action. They will say, we cannot do it now. We might have
0:15:04 > 0:15:07been able to do it yesterday, but we cannot commit to it today.
0:15:07 > 0:15:11funding settlement we have put in place for local government is a
0:15:11 > 0:15:15fair settlement which takes into account the access that we are
0:15:15 > 0:15:19providing to a range of different funding streams to develop new
0:15:19 > 0:15:23preventative interventions in the delivery of public services. When
0:15:23 > 0:15:27you look at the fact that the local government settlement over the
0:15:27 > 0:15:31whole of the last spending review and in the 2010-11 settlement were
0:15:32 > 0:15:35better than most other areas of the public sector, I think we have
0:15:35 > 0:15:38created a very strong platform from which local authorities can take
0:15:38 > 0:15:43decisions in the current period. The efficiency savings which she
0:15:43 > 0:15:46claimed yesterday to have surpassed yet again. Would you agree to an
0:15:46 > 0:15:51independent audit to determine whether these are real savings of
0:15:51 > 0:15:56just cuts? For example, asking ordered Scotland to look at these
0:15:56 > 0:16:01and then publish the years. Audit Scotland have looked at the
0:16:01 > 0:16:06programmes in the past, and I think the questions that arise out of all
0:16:06 > 0:16:09of that analysis is whether or not we should spend ever-more time
0:16:09 > 0:16:13producing ever more detail to assess the efficiency programme
0:16:14 > 0:16:18that we have undertaken. They said they could not tell whether these
0:16:18 > 0:16:21were real efficiency savings or not. There are some pretty strict rules
0:16:21 > 0:16:26about what can be constituted as an efficiency saving, and essentially
0:16:26 > 0:16:32the role is this, that you have to be able to provide the same service
0:16:32 > 0:16:37for a lesser amount of money by a reform process, and that is the
0:16:37 > 0:16:40approach that categorises and efficiency saving, and that is the
0:16:40 > 0:16:44one the Government has done on for the duration of the programme. I
0:16:44 > 0:16:48think the achievement of the last four years has been to deliver
0:16:48 > 0:16:51efficiency savings that have really enabled us to invest in public
0:16:51 > 0:16:57services and to reform the structure and operation of those
0:16:57 > 0:17:00public services. Now, this tax on supermarkets, I'm not clear if it
0:17:00 > 0:17:04is just on supermarkets, but it seems to be just on supermarkets.
0:17:04 > 0:17:09You'll forgive them for thinking, given you had a similar proposal
0:17:09 > 0:17:12last year for different reasons, you have just got it in for them.
0:17:12 > 0:17:16What I Want To do is to make sure that the government opens up new
0:17:16 > 0:17:19streams of funding to enable us to support the preventative spending
0:17:19 > 0:17:24agenda properly. This is not intended to achieve anything other
0:17:24 > 0:17:29than to get youth money. You're not suggesting that supermarkets will
0:17:29 > 0:17:33stop selling cigarettes and booze, are you? Why I am assuming is that
0:17:33 > 0:17:37as a consequence of the revenue that is raised from the public
0:17:37 > 0:17:41health supplement that we are proposing on non-domestic rates is
0:17:41 > 0:17:44that we will be able to raise revenue that will enable us to
0:17:44 > 0:17:48invest in preventative spending projects within Scotland. The
0:17:48 > 0:17:51challenge that I faced in his spending round, you know, everyone
0:17:51 > 0:17:55has been banging on about preventative spending being the
0:17:55 > 0:17:58right way to proceed for years and years and years, and I faced a very
0:17:58 > 0:18:02tough spending settlement this time around, but I was determined to use
0:18:03 > 0:18:06the advantage of the Government's majority in parliament and a five-
0:18:06 > 0:18:09year parliamentary term to reshape public expenditure in Scotland so
0:18:09 > 0:18:13that we tackle some of these long- term social Kells that we have in
0:18:13 > 0:18:17our country. -- social ills. This is what the supplement is intended
0:18:17 > 0:18:21to do, to focus on investing and changing the course of some of the
0:18:21 > 0:18:26social ills that have affected Scotland for far too long. We will
0:18:26 > 0:18:28have to leave it there. I'm drive from Edinburgh by three of Mr
0:18:28 > 0:18:32Swinney's political opponents, Lewis MacDonald speaks our
0:18:32 > 0:18:36infrastructure and investment for Labour, Gavin Brown is the
0:18:36 > 0:18:41Conservative spokesman for the economy, and Willie Rennie leaves
0:18:41 > 0:18:45the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Lewis MacDonald, a pretty poor hand
0:18:45 > 0:18:50played quite well. Well, what he has done, he has certainly put a
0:18:50 > 0:18:55fine gloss on what are very, very serious cuts, and I think what many
0:18:55 > 0:18:58people will find objectionable is not just the services that he has
0:18:58 > 0:19:04cut and the budgets he has dreamt but the way he has tried to present
0:19:04 > 0:19:10it as if there is nothing terribly wrong here. Take housing as one
0:19:10 > 0:19:14example. In the SNP manifesto, they promised 6,000 new social rented
0:19:14 > 0:19:19homes every year. As soon as the election was passed, that target
0:19:19 > 0:19:23changed to include mid-market renting. They have today cut by 50%
0:19:23 > 0:19:26the funding available for new housing supply. How have they
0:19:26 > 0:19:29squared that circle? They are saying they want to be judged not
0:19:29 > 0:19:32by the number of houses they approve, but by the number they
0:19:33 > 0:19:37complete, and what that means is they will be able to count next
0:19:37 > 0:19:41year as completions some of the new homes that were counted last year
0:19:41 > 0:19:44as approvals. It is the fact that they are not being honest and
0:19:44 > 0:19:49straightforward about the cuts that they have made that will Hirst as
0:19:49 > 0:19:53much as the cuts themselves. Labour is in favour of cut but not
0:19:53 > 0:19:58dishonest ones? Is that what you are saying? You wouldn't like to
0:19:58 > 0:20:02say, hey, we're going to slash the social housing budget, because we
0:20:02 > 0:20:06are honest! Labour is in favour of honest government across the board.
0:20:06 > 0:20:10If a party is elected to government same, we will build 6,000 houses
0:20:10 > 0:20:15every year, we expect them to do that, not to produce a Budget in
0:20:15 > 0:20:19which they move away from that but try to disguise the fact. You're
0:20:19 > 0:20:23getting very exercised about cuts to local authorities, would you?
0:20:23 > 0:20:28That is a bit rich given what your government in England has done to
0:20:28 > 0:20:31local authorities there? The point I made today is that what the
0:20:31 > 0:20:36Cabinet Secretary said was not correct. The impression was given
0:20:36 > 0:20:40that there was a flat settlement for local government and they're
0:20:40 > 0:20:43actually would be the same result of the course of the spending
0:20:43 > 0:20:47review. The Scottish government's own figures showed pretty clearly
0:20:47 > 0:20:52that over the course of the spending review, they would be �1
0:20:52 > 0:20:57billion down from 8.4 billion down to 7.4 billion. You think that is a
0:20:57 > 0:21:02bad thing or a good thing? It does seem as if they are taking a larger
0:21:03 > 0:21:07share of the hit than others, but the specific point I made today was
0:21:07 > 0:21:12the impression was given that actually... So you do not mind cuts,
0:21:12 > 0:21:15you just want our as cuts. points I would like to make. One is
0:21:15 > 0:21:20this, the UK government had the spending review at the tail-end of
0:21:20 > 0:21:24last year, so the SNP knew exactly what they would have to spend over
0:21:24 > 0:21:29the course of the next four years when they wrote their manifesto.
0:21:29 > 0:21:33What they also said was that they wanted to make the economy the
0:21:33 > 0:21:37priority of priorities. My concern is that the number of measures that
0:21:37 > 0:21:40would help the economy, whether enterprise agencies, the innovation
0:21:41 > 0:21:46budgets, skills for next year, housing and regeneration, as you
0:21:46 > 0:21:49have just heard, all of those received fairly sizable cuts, and
0:21:49 > 0:21:55I'm just not convinced that what they have done is prioritising the
0:21:55 > 0:21:59economy. Willie Rennie, I will listen to your critique of this,
0:21:59 > 0:22:02which frankly I did not understand. Perhaps you will tell us again.
0:22:02 > 0:22:07main concerns we had about the Budget was that they did not make
0:22:07 > 0:22:10the right decisions on council tax, on capital infrastructure, but also
0:22:10 > 0:22:15on making sure that we have created the right conditions for growth in
0:22:15 > 0:22:19Scotland. Those, we think, should have been prioritised. But they
0:22:19 > 0:22:23have decided not to take the options are. For instance, we were
0:22:23 > 0:22:28in favour of the �1.5 billion Scottish Water Futures Fund, which
0:22:28 > 0:22:30would have invested in science, insulation and making sure we had
0:22:30 > 0:22:35an early intervention programme, which I think John Swinney had made
0:22:35 > 0:22:38some progress on. But I think they should have invested in the fund
0:22:38 > 0:22:45for that, the council tax free should have been abandoned, but we
0:22:45 > 0:22:51also think that they should have... Hang on... You think the council
0:22:51 > 0:22:55tax freeze should be abandoned this coming financial year? We recognise
0:22:55 > 0:22:59that there should be a two-year freeze, but not a five-year freeze.
0:22:59 > 0:23:05Right, OK, what is the Labour position on that? We would take the
0:23:05 > 0:23:10same view that the prospect of five years of council tax Freezes going
0:23:10 > 0:23:15forward, given the 7% cut in council tax budgets, given the
0:23:15 > 0:23:18intention to take �200 million away from council capital budgets, that
0:23:18 > 0:23:21is clearly putting enormous pressure on those services, are
0:23:21 > 0:23:26enormous pressure on the people working in them. What about the
0:23:26 > 0:23:32Tories? In terms of council tax freeze, in our manifesto we would
0:23:32 > 0:23:35have had a council tax freeze for next year, 2012-13. We did not
0:23:36 > 0:23:39budget for a council tax raised after that because we were not sure
0:23:39 > 0:23:44whether it would be affordable. We favour low-tax as much as possible.
0:23:45 > 0:23:50In terms of the manifesto, we had one for next year, but not for the
0:23:50 > 0:23:55years after that. I am still not clear, Lewis MacDonald, other than
0:23:55 > 0:23:58not liking the way John Swinney, in your view, was being dishonest,
0:23:58 > 0:24:06what exactly are you proposing he should have done other than what he
0:24:06 > 0:24:09did? Well, government has to be... Failing to address the promises you
0:24:10 > 0:24:13have made in an election is actually a pretty serious issue.
0:24:13 > 0:24:17And what we are saying here is that cuts across some of the key
0:24:17 > 0:24:21services, which all the rhetoric of the SNP would lead you to believe
0:24:21 > 0:24:25they were actually committed to increasing, so for example if you
0:24:25 > 0:24:28take the position of further education colleges, which clearly
0:24:28 > 0:24:32have a particular challenge facing them, given the number of young
0:24:32 > 0:24:35people currently unemployed and looking for new skills and new
0:24:35 > 0:24:39opportunities, you would expect on the basis of their rhetoric that
0:24:39 > 0:24:43they would be expanding that. But they are cutting it and cutting it
0:24:43 > 0:24:46again, and the principles of these colleges are saying they cannot be
0:24:46 > 0:24:50expected to absorb those cuts without an impact on learners, so
0:24:50 > 0:24:55those are the key issues. Where would you have found the savings,
0:24:55 > 0:24:59then? Well, we are now in the 5th year, the 5th time John Swinney has
0:24:59 > 0:25:04stood up to present a budget. It is for him to bring forward a budget
0:25:04 > 0:25:08and to explain and justify his choices. These are his choices.
0:25:08 > 0:25:12you don't have any proposals? Clearly, there are things we would
0:25:12 > 0:25:15have done differently. We outlined a range of improvements in terms of
0:25:15 > 0:25:19public service reform which would produce savings, but the key thing
0:25:19 > 0:25:24here is that John Swinney has made his choices, but he has not
0:25:24 > 0:25:30presented them in a clear way, and people will be surprised and
0:25:30 > 0:25:33disappointed at the kind of cuts that he has chosen to make. I think
0:25:33 > 0:25:36Alex Salmond will find that difficult to justify, cutting
0:25:36 > 0:25:42further education, cutting local Poti services and the housing
0:25:42 > 0:25:47budget. Taxing supermarkets, Willie Rennie, a great idea? It sounds
0:25:47 > 0:25:51very similar to the last proposal which we are opposed, but they have
0:25:51 > 0:25:59taken our public health attempts are on alcohol, and if the money
0:25:59 > 0:26:04goes into health, that is something we should look at, but Gavin Brown.
0:26:04 > 0:26:09Last year we had a similar proposal, it was only going to hit out-of-
0:26:09 > 0:26:14town supermarkets, and within a couple of days the entire policy
0:26:14 > 0:26:17unravelled as it was clear that most high streets damaged the
0:26:17 > 0:26:22retail sector. We have not committed either way, but we are
0:26:22 > 0:26:26extremely keen to see the detail, to see what is involved in it.
0:26:26 > 0:26:32business about efficiency savings, I am curious, in all party
0:26:32 > 0:26:38manifestos, not just the SNP, it is a constant, stuck in there to make
0:26:38 > 0:26:41the numbers add up. You were much in favour of efficiency savings,
0:26:41 > 0:26:45Lewis MacDonald. Do think it is reasonable that the public should
0:26:45 > 0:26:50be able to go to war that Scotland and say, well, is this really
0:26:50 > 0:26:54efficiency savings or not? Why should we take his word for it?
0:26:54 > 0:26:58Indeed, that is its purpose in life, to ensure we get value for public
0:26:58 > 0:27:03money, and I was interested... is not formally incorporated in
0:27:03 > 0:27:05this process. No, it is not, but I was interested in the fact that
0:27:05 > 0:27:09John Swinney seemed to be reluctant to go down that road will
0:27:09 > 0:27:12commission some kind of formal review war monitoring of the
0:27:12 > 0:27:16efficiency savings he is claiming to make, because clearly there is a
0:27:16 > 0:27:20difference between efficiency savings, which we all aspire to,
0:27:20 > 0:27:24and cuts, which can damage public services. So would you like to, in
0:27:24 > 0:27:28the unlikely event of Labour sweeping to power any time soon,
0:27:28 > 0:27:32committal party to having efficiency savings independently
0:27:32 > 0:27:36audited? -- commit your party. can see a lot of merit in that
0:27:36 > 0:27:39proposal, and if I get the opportunity to put it into practice,
0:27:40 > 0:27:44I would be delighted. Willie Rennie? I think that sounds
0:27:44 > 0:27:48reasonable, but we need to be real about this. The cuts from
0:27:48 > 0:27:51Westminster are quite significant, and John Swinney would have a
0:27:51 > 0:27:54difficult budgets to set, no doubt about that, but it is about the
0:27:54 > 0:27:58choices that the Scottish government has to make, and they
0:27:58 > 0:28:01criticise Westminster for not prioritising the economy, but today
0:28:01 > 0:28:05they ducked on three significant areas of the economy, on the
0:28:05 > 0:28:09council tax, on the capital infrastructure and on the Scottish
0:28:09 > 0:28:12Water Fund that be promoted. I just think they cannot claim any more to
0:28:12 > 0:28:17be trying to promote the economy when they duck those three issues.
0:28:17 > 0:28:21The same point I put to Lewis MacDonald, what would you cut
0:28:21 > 0:28:26instead? Lewis MacDonald says, we do not have to do anything, it is
0:28:27 > 0:28:30not our job. I have just in the three examples, Scottish Water,
0:28:30 > 0:28:35�1.5 billion, �250 million Cavell infrastructure budget, and the
0:28:35 > 0:28:39council tax freeze, which we do not think is appropriate to continue.
0:28:39 > 0:28:44Gavin Brown, going back a second, will you commit... Efficiency
0:28:44 > 0:28:48savings? It is possible the Tories or whatever the Tories are called
0:28:48 > 0:28:52will sweep to an outright majority in the next Scottish elections!
0:28:52 > 0:29:02Will you commit to your efficiency savings being independently
0:29:02 > 0:29:16
0:29:16 > 0:29:26I it agree very much with what John Swinney said in two dozen and six.
0:29:26 > 0:29:28
0:29:28 > 0:29:34Your chance to nominate some cuts. What I do all ideas? In terms of
0:29:34 > 0:29:38Scottish water, if you neutralise it, we could save about �150
0:29:38 > 0:29:43million a year from the capital budget. We also have to look at
0:29:43 > 0:29:48some of the universal provisions. Prescriptions, for example, we
0:29:48 > 0:29:58don't think should be free for everybody. If you kept them, you
0:29:58 > 0:30:02would save �37 million a year. I think we have to look at something
0:30:02 > 0:30:11like concessionary travel. If you put in some restrictions, you could