Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the cabinet secretary concede that the cost pressures that GPs and dentists face were already in place as a result of decisions that were taken by his Government? It is the cumulative impact that is now effectively the straw that could break the camel’s back.

I will. Perhaps Jackie Baillie can give us her interpretation.

Jackie Baillie is forgetting that inflation was falling, interest rates were falling and economic growth was on an upward path, which the OBR now says is under threat as a result of the Labour Party’s budget.

The devil is always in the detail of any chancellor’s statement, and we should be alert to that. That is priced into politics. However, this budget is not priced in because few, if any, chancellors have sought to raise tax by such a staggering amount in a single budget—£40 billion—and no chancellor has sought to do it in such an underhand way.

For the record, Labour’s manifesto did not state explicitly that the commitment applied only to employee national insurance—I accept that. However, we know that it was deliberately opaque. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, reinforced that point when he stated publicly that increasing employer national insurance contributions is a

“straightforward breach of a manifesto commitment.”

Even if we give the UK Labour Government the benefit of the doubt—even Scottish Labour members will struggle to do that today—it remains clear that a rise in employer contributions still amounts to a tax on working people and on public service delivery.

The OBR forecasts that about three quarters of employer national insurance contributions will be passed on to employees, including those effectively delivering Scotland’s public services. Scotland’s public sector will be hit unduly hard because it is larger and because the workers in it are paid more than in the rest of the UK.

Today, we will hear that this £25 billion tax on jobs will hit many organisations that directly and indirectly deliver our public services. It could cost councils alone £265 million. It will hit our general practitioner surgeries, universities, care homes, the palliative care sector and independent nurseries, and a huge range of third sector organisations and private contractors now face severe financial pressures.

In short, the decision will cost jobs and result in lower real-terms wages, thereby reducing the overall amount that the measure will raise after its indirect consequences are accounted for.

The OBR also says that passing on employer national insurance contributions increases will contribute to a “sharp” slowdown in real household disposable income growth in 2026-27 and 2027-28—the growth that the UK Government said that its budget would deliver for Scotland. In other words, the increases will undermine growth here in Scotland and across the UK.

Therefore, it is no surprise that alarm bells are ringing across the public sector and in the many organisations delivering services on behalf of the state. Those concerned about the negative impact of all that come from a variety of well-respected groups in Scotland, all of which are now issuing similar stark warnings.

The chairman of the British Medical Association’s Scottish general practitioners committee, Dr Iain Morrison, said:

“We would call on both governments to urgently provide reassurances on additional funding and ensure GPs will not be forced to shoulder the burden of these extra employment costs at the expense of the care they will be able to provide to patients.”

It is increasingly clear that the impact will not just be on GPs but on the third sector and charities. Marie Curie warns that Scotland’s hospice sector began this year with a predicted £15 million budget deficit, and that was before NHS pay awards were announced. The organisation says that, without urgent support, further service cuts and vulnerable patients being turned away will become unavoidable, and it calls on ministers, including Scottish ministers to act now. It added:

“With the additional funding from the UK Government, the Scottish Government now has the opportunity and financial means to demonstrate its commitment to supporting essential palliative care services.”

Will the member draw a distinction between public sector workers at the front line—after all, we all support significant wage rises there when they are affordable—and the army of spin doctors and other backroom staff that has ballooned under the SNP, particularly since the Covid pandemic?

I conclude on that point.

I move amendment S6M-15529.2, to leave out from “should” to end and insert:

“increasing employer national insurance contributions will have a detrimental impact on all sectors of Scotland’s economy, including the public, private and voluntary sectors; further believes that it will harm the ability of the NHS in Scotland to deliver services and will undermine social care and third sector organisations involved in public sector delivery; recognises that the rise in employer national insurance contributions is a breach of the Labour Party’s manifesto promise, which stated that it will not increase national insurance; acknowledges that this tax rise on jobs will disproportionately impact Scotland due to a higher number of public sector workers and higher public sector pay levels; notes that the Scottish Government’s policy decisions have already increased the tax burden on hardworking people and businesses in Scotland; calls on the UK Government to reverse its increase to employer national insurance contributions, and further calls on the Scottish Government to use its Budget on 4 December 2024 to start the process of reversing the increased tax burden that it has imposed on Scotland’s economy.”

The cabinet secretary is sounding complacent on the issue, because it is becoming increasingly clear that the Scottish Government’s high-tax policies risk undermining Scotland’s tax take.

Given that formal studies into the behavioural impact of tax changes on high earners, in particular, will reveal the problem only after the damage has been done, will the Government commit to developing rapid indicators to track the impact of its tax policies? Specifically, will it adopt the recommendations from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and commit to gathering and publishing monthly figures based on pay-as-you-earn information in tax submissions and releasing anonymised details of taxpayer address changes, so as to provide real-time information on the effects of the Government’s decisions on tax?

Neil Gray cheered on Aberdeen from the comfort of VIP seats, and he repeatedly expected the Scottish taxpayer to pay to get him there and back. The minister has now admitted that he did not travel alone to those football matches. As he climbed into his ministerial limousine, showing off to his family and friends, did Neil Gray not realise for just one minute that he was abusing his position and taking the taxpayer for a ride? Before he loses what is left of his credibility, will he commit to paying the money back and to asking the First Minister, who is sitting next to him, to allow a full investigation into the scandal?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?