08/02/2012 Newsnight Scotland

weight to the �30 million cut depending on where you include the

15 million, the 6 million, the other figures that he mentioned.

But it is a step in the right direction. Colleges which provide

mainly vocational courses have been lobbying hard to get the scale of

the cuts reduced, and they welcomed the news. The funding will be

around �20 million less this year, which may not sound like a huge sum,

but it is significant to colleges. Clearly, we obviously want to

maximise the number of opportunities we provide for young

people and older students as well, and clearly managing those

reductions in funding will still be a challenge, but it is an easy

challenge perhaps that it was hitherto. The National Union of

Students staged a write-in campaign to the Scottish government, which

they say resulted in 80,000 e-mails to MSPs about the importance of

further education to young people at a time when one in a four is

unemployed. We are very happy with the overall result. Of course, we

are concerned because they are still being cut, and we will be

watching very closely over the next two to three years to see how the

Government's reforms go through, making sure that the government

maintains its promises. The overall budget bill, which covers �30

billion worth of government spending, was passed by 70 to 52.

Mr Swinney achieved consensus with the Lib Dems, but not the

Conservatives, Greens and Labour. Earlier, the Finance Secretary came

into our Dundee studio, and I asked him to clarify the position about

the funding of further education colleges. His there now no cut in

spending? There have been reductions in funding for further

education within Scotland, but that is part of the reform programme

that the government is taking forward. Going back a few weeks, I

put in place a college transformation Fund which was

designed to help colleges adapt to that a regional model of governance

that the government is putting forward and the programme of

increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the sector. The

resources we have put in will help that process. Right, but when

Labour say that you were planning a �40 million cut, and as a result of

the measures he announced today, it is a �20 million cut, would you

dispute those figures? It all hinges essentially on how you want

to treat the college transformation but that I have put in of �15

million. The purpose of that fund was to assist the college is in

managing the transition to a new financial climate that we think is

necessary, where the college is to operate much more closely together

and we deploy provision in a way that meets the needs of the student

community and also the needs of employers throughout the country.

So I think the key point to take out of this discussion is the fact

that the government is putting in more resources to the college

sector than we had originally planned, and as a consequence I

would have thought that was a strong enough foundation to enable

the Labour Party to vote for the Budget, which they decided not to

do. But if I were running and FT College, what percentage cut now in

the resources I have to spend can I expect to have next year? --

Further Education College. Education Secretary wrote to

principles just after the turn of the year, and before the resources

that I have allocated today were put into the system, indicating

that no College would receive a reduction in funding of greater

than 8.5% in this financial year. Now, clearly the number will be

lower than that as a consequence of the resources... But you do not

know how much? I have not made at High Commission tonight, but what

is important we have put in additional resources,... -- I have

not made that calculation tonight. Are you talking in cash terms or

real terms? I am talking in cash terms. So it is more like 12%.

There are many aspects of public spending provision which are a

challenge for as given the reduction in public expenditure

which are being undertaken as a consequence of the pressures we

face in the United Kingdom. The key point, Gordon, is that the

government has listened carefully to the views that have been

expressed around the country. We have taken account of those, we

have increased the resources that we have put into the sector. We

have maintained the necessity for us to undertake the college reform

programme, and we will continue to pursue that approach, but clearly

we have put in resources to support the provision of further education

within Scotland, and I think that... And try to get a sense of what this

means. 12% in real terms, maybe a bit less, 10%. Deal at any estimate

of how many young people at a time of very high youth unemployment,

how many extra young people will be able to go to college in the next

financial year as a result of the budget you have announced today

than would have been able to go before the additional money you put

in today? The best way to approach that question is to look at the

guarantee the government has given that every 16-90 will, if they are

unable to secure employment, they will be guaranteed training or

education opportunities within Scotland. -- 16-19 year-olds. That

is an absolute guarantee to those people within Scotland, and it is

an indication of the way in which the government has adapted to the

enormous pressures that we face within the public expenditure

accounts. It is a response to what we are dealing with in the economy

and the labour market, and to make sure that every young person in

Scotland as an opportunity to develop their skills and

capabilities. Why are you reducing your proposed tax on supermarkets

which sell booze? Well, I have had a discussion with the retailers. I

have listened to the arguments that they have put forward, and I set

out at the beginning of the budget process that this would be a

revenue-raising measure that would be designed to raise �30 million in

the first year in which it was applied. In looking at the numbers

in non-domestic rates, looking specifically at the change that is

taking place in England, we do not require to raise �30 million from

the public health supplement. could have done and not raised the

large business poundage. The problem is the one-hour time

limited. This is such a terrifying measure that he will only have to

pay for three years. It is an adjustment, a recognition of the

fact that at a time when the government has a number of

priorities, at a time of public expenditure constraints, we want to

shift the balance of public spending into preventative

expenditure. We have got to raise that money from somewhere, and we

have had the courage to do that by applying a public health

supplements, and by deploying those resources in assisting the

government to manage transition at a time of enormous financial

pressure... You would accept that his new tax has got nothing to do

with stopping people drinking, has it? It is just to get more money.

have been clear that this is about raising revenue, and I have had the

courage to do it. It is ridiculous for Members of Parliament to stand

in debate and say, yes, we are in favour of preventative spending,

but not be prepared to take the decisions to allocate the money or

raise the revenue. We have been prepared to do that at a time of

fiscal constraint, and I think it is important to do that, because if

we get the preventative measures correct within Scotland, we will

start to ensure the sustainability of our public finances and public

services in the years to come. Swinney, that's fine match. I am

joined by Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and Liberal Democrat

leader Willie Reni, and here in Glasgow, Ken Macintosh of Labour.

Why did you vote for this Budget? We argued for more spending on

colleges, on social housing, and an early intervention. That is what we

argued with John Swinney, and the priorities that were set out today

reflected that the additional spending. We felt it was

appropriate to give its support. he had come up with anything, you

were that said, that is fine, we will vote for it? That is silly,

corn. We argued for those things I have set out, the early

intervention, social housing, and a reverse to the cuts at the colleges.

We are good for that, and it was reflected in the additional

spending today. We thought it was reasonable. Ken Macintosh. You were

asking for the same things. Well, we asked for several things. The

thing to remember about this is the key talking about the additional

spending today. This is not about additional spending. This is about

a series of cuts, this is about people losing their jobs, people

losing the services they get from local government. I understand that,

but John Swinney has got a shed load of money from Westminster

because of various factors, and he distributed it largely on the

projects that both you and the Liberal Democrats wanted him to

spend the money on, so why not just say, tough economic times, we

accept you are going in the direction that we wanted? Just

stick colleges alone. If you take a �74 million cut to colleges and in

19 back, that is not addressing the needs of the Scottish economy. That

is not a Budget for jobs and growth, it is a cut with a little bit of

moderation. You are deliberately ignored the point I made. I am

addressing it wholeheartedly. To give you an idea of what this

process was like, John Swinney asked Des two weeks ago for a half-

hour conversation and then gave us the figures an hour before the

Budget today. That is not a process of involving the opposition in

constructing a set of priorities. That is not about winning support

for tackling economic growth for an employment market in Scotland. That

is simply a political device designed to buy off the worst sort

of uproar about the decisions he has made. Ruth Davidson, what is

your problem with this? Particularly given that John

Swinney can reasonably argue that a lot of the constraints young

working and are imposed by the Tory government in London. Why didn't

you vote for it? We wanted to see a budget based on growth and jobs,

and it was lacking in both cases. We wanted to stop putting a

Scotland only tax on big retailers. We also wanted to see support for

small businesses and town-centre as. What would you have cut, then?

identified areas where there was money available. Also, the �142

million reserved as lending to Scottish water, which would have

covered what we asked for. But his idea that you don't like his so-

called Tesco tax to raise money on preventative medicine, argues

saying spending that money on preventative medicine is wrong if

it harms big supermarkets? -- argues saying. Putting a Scotland

only tax on large retailers damages the economy. I get that. But we do

not spend the extra money in the health service? -- but would you

not. You can make extra money to the health service. For example, we

don't believe that rich people should get free prescriptions.

that point, all these things are about political decisions. You are

validating the political decisions of that John Swinney has made,

saying, for example, cutting money to further educational colleges is

worth doing rather than stopping better-off people getting free

prescriptions? If we had a majority in parliament, at which we don't,

we would do things differently. But we argued strongly for a reversing

of the cuts, a more social housing. And we got it. We thought it was

reasonable to recognise that change happened. We wanted to use the

funds locked up in Scottish water and put that into capital spending,

on science, the digital economy, making sure early intervention got

a bigger boost, and energy savings for homes. I offered to help the

SNP, but they refused. Nevertheless, the mood in the right direction.

What would you have cut, Ken Macintosh? The Budget itself didn't

deliver on the SNP's own objectives. It is not a budget for jobs and

growth. It is not a radical attempt to galvanise the Scottish economy.

If you look at the steps the SNP took, for example the Tesco tax and

enterprise zones, neither of those have been assessed for their impact

on jobs. That there is not the mark of a government that wants to

tackle joblessness in Scotland. you are against third supermarket

tax? In principle. In the world of abstract theory, you think it is a

great idea? Exactly the opposite. We would be willing, and still are

at this moment, to work with the SNP, to produce a Budget that would

work for Scotland. If they wouldn't do in assessment and prove its

impact on business... Would you, Willie Rennie? We wouldn't have

done that if we were in charge ourselves. Nevertheless, we

supported the budget. I am not clear still what you want to cut?

There are two things wrong with its budget... You have said all that!

We would ask the SNP to intervene far more robustly in the economy.

Why not use procurement, for example? We have got a multi-

billion pound contract... This may be fantastic, but it doesn't answer

the question. If you are saying John Swinney should not have cut

�20 million from the further education budget, you might have

made the money in the future, but what would you have cut? Gordon, I

am sorry! If you bring in opposition parties, and ask them to

help you shape your priorities, you can expect our support. I am asking

what you would have cut! If the SNP can demonstrate that what they are

doing one make a difference, tackle employment in Scotland,... What

would you take -- or would it take for you to support this? I want to

see a budget that would address joblessness and youth unemployment.

You had John Swinney there saying they would be a guarantee of

vocational, further education or training for every young person in

Scotland. If that is true, how can you say they are not doing anything

for young people? Youth unemployment is at 100,000 across

Scotland at the moment. What we have seen today is a budget for

next year, when John Swinney has �250 million more. He has got a

decrease in real terms, but he has slashed college budgets by more

than 8%. He will put a Tesco tax on the retail centre. It affect the

number of people who go to college. Could you answer the question?! How

many extra people could go to college? How many fewer people do

you think will be able to go to college as a result of this?

have got to �20 million taken out. 1,000 college staff have gone. The

colleges are asking us what is going on. If I can finish my

original point, Gordon. We added time, I am afraid. -- we are out of

time. Now a quick look at tomorrow's