Seòmar agus comataidhean

As we all know, across the public sector, a substantial proportion of the funding that has been allocated to the NHS and to education—indeed, to all public services—is for fixed costs. That includes the costs of staff, including wage increases, employer pension contributions and national insurance contributions, to which I will come shortly.

In addition, the funding includes, in the NHS, the costs of the Scottish Ambulance Service, of running hospitals, of medications and of payments to general practitioner practices—for example, for their contracts with NHS boards. There is not, therefore, much room for flexibility. There is room for reform and efficiency, and that is a task for the minister, Ivan McKee. I am thankful that he is not Elon Musk.

The budget has had to cover increased salaries across the public sector, with their ancillary employer costs, none of which we would begrudge nurses, the police and so on. However, the body blow of the increase in employer national insurance contributions has made a huge dent in the money that is available for those front-line services. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has estimated that the additional cost to councils alone will be £240 million. It is welcome that the SNP Government has committed to providing councils with an additional £144 million to support the cost of that hike. However, that does not cover the entire cost, and across Scotland, public services will face a bill of more than £700 million.

Despite that, the UK Government has suggested that it will not reimburse the cost in full, which could leave Scotland some £300 million short. The increase in provision to councils will help to cover the additional and recurring costs of pay rises for teachers, social workers, refuse collectors and so on. Those pay rises are deserved, and are mainly a consequence of years of Tory austerity, which climaxed in Trussonomics. Now, however, Labour’s national insurance increase will make sure that some of that money will simply go straight back to the Treasury.

That is not all. The impact across the economy of the national insurance increase will be damaging to all sectors. I know of businesses that are already not expanding, and of some that are looking to cut staff because they cannot meet the increased bill. There are serious consequences for the care sector, which is supportive of the real living wage but is finding that paying it, on top of increased national insurance contributions, is a measure too far.

There is also the impact on charities to consider. In Scotland 136,000 people are employed in the charitable sector. It is reckoned that the NI rise will cost charities £17 million a year; for example, it will cost the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals £400,000 a year.

Four Square (Scotland) is an Edinburgh charity that supports people who face homelessness. It employs about 120 people and has a turnover of less than £4 million. It delivers public services on behalf of the local authority, and has very limited options for finding money for the unexpected NI costs. It is considering whether it can afford a cost of living salary increase for staff in April 2025, or needs to cut posts. The strain on the voluntary sector will impact on public services, because there is bound to be displacement from voluntary services to the public sector and increasing demand.

To that national insurance pressure we can add the current 3 per cent rise in the cost of living, which is on an upward trajectory. That is now compounded by a 6.4 per cent increase in the energy cap, which will cost Scottish consumers £281 on average per year, with the average energy debt in Scotland—this figure is from Citizens Advice Scotland—being £2,500. In rural areas, it is worse, at £3,100.

That is the economic climate that has been set by UK plc, against which the Scottish Government’s budget endeavours to deliver, with increasing demand on our public services.

High on the list is poverty, particularly child poverty, which will increase for the reasons that I have outlined. Although they have already been mentioned, I mention again the highly popular baby box, which has more than 90 per cent uptake; universal free school meals from primary 1 to P5; the Scottish child payment, which is currently £26.70 for every child under 16 in a qualifying household; removal of the two-child benefit cap; the return of the universal winter fuel payment; the introduction of breakfast clubs; free travel for pensioners, for many disabled people and for under-22s; and no tuition fees. That is a great list, and those things are what our taxes pay for.

Finally, as we all know, not everything can be achieved, so setting a budget is about choices, and this Government has made good choices. What a contrast that is with UK Labour, which is undermining our farming community with an inheritance tax, leaving pensioners out in the cold, removing the universal winter fuel payment, defending the two-child benefit cap and hiking employer national insurance contributions.

What a difference there is in our budget priorities, and what a difference there would be if we had full control over our economy with independence.

I anticipated your request to be brief, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government what research it has recently completed into the efficacy and standardisation of the presumption of inclusion in mainstream education. (S6O-04337)

I congratulate my colleague on securing this debate.

When PFI is mentioned to the public, it does not mean much to them—but it does matter. The abbreviation stands for private finance initiative. In practice, it means private companies building the likes of schools for local authorities, which enter into a contract to pay for the building over a period, often decades. That is key: ownership only passes to the council only at the end of the contract—generally speaking. After all, contracts do vary.

That seemed a whizz of an idea to Labour at UK level, and the party eagerly adopted it when it was in power in Scotland. Shiny new schools—what is not to like? When the SNP came into government, though, the approach was ditched—and for good reason.

Because of PFI, which just means “Build now and pay as you go”, three schools in the Borders—in Eyemouth, Duns and Earlston—that had a build cost of £72.5 million will, as a result of annual payment obligations, actually cost the council £350 million by 2037. By that time, the schools will be pretty old. It is rather like buying a car on hire purchase. We must always read the figures at the bottom of the contract; they can be eye watering, and by the time we own the car, it will be towards the end of its journey. It is the same for schools under PFI.

In comparison, the new Galashiels academy and Peebles high will not be built in that expensive manner. I understand that, in Midlothian, PFI contracts for five schools are costing the council around £1 million per month. I repeat—£1 million a month. We must never forget the damaging on-going costs of those contracts, which reduce by millions the funding that Borders Council and Midlothian Council could be using and putting to better use elsewhere.

Finally, the contracts often come with tough provisions such as paying for private maintenance. In England, private companies are now shirking their contractual repair and maintain obligations, particularly as the contracts come to an end.

The financial burdens bequeathed by Labour remind us not only that it is making an economic mess now; it made one before, and the Borders and Midlothian will continue to pay through the nose for that PFI mess for decades.

I fully support the presumption on inclusion that was introduced in legislation more than two decades ago. However, I know of several cases in which it simply is not working in the interests of the child or of the class. I know that there is a balance, so I ask the minister to keep it under review. We want the child and the class to get the best out of the situation.

I, too, congratulate my colleague in the neighbouring constituency on securing the debate. Over the many years during which I have represented Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, I have been well aware of the impact and incidence of what is termed “rural crime”, which is defined by NFU Scotland as

“any crime that occurs in a rural location or affects any person living, working or visiting a rural location”.

I thank the NFUS in particular for its briefing.

Relative to the population, the volume of rural crime is lower than in urban locations. However, the knock-on effect in a rural community or environment often has a much deeper and more far-reaching impact, both on the victims and on the community as a whole. I note that Police Scotland, in recording crime, does not—I believe—categorise crimes as rural or urban. As a result, therefore, neither Police Scotland nor the Scottish Government have data on “rural” crimes such as the theft of agricultural machinery, plant or fuel or timber; it is simply recorded under the wider category of theft.

We therefore rely on the NFUS for the most recent figures, which are highlighted in the motion and to which other speakers have referred. They show the cost of rural crime in Scotland rising from £1.4 million in 2022 to £1.8 million in 2023. The number of claims has risen by 22 per cent. Claims for machinery theft cost £1.1 million in 2023, and claims for the theft of quad bikes and GPS kits cost £335,000 and £363,000 respectively.

Farms are seen as easy targets, and for obvious reasons it is difficult to self-police.

My intervention is a comment on the theft of sheep, which has happened in a farm in my constituency. It was obviously a shepherd who had stolen the sheep and taken them down the old drovers’ road. It was in the middle of nowhere, and the farmer did not find out until months later, at a specific time of year, that he had lost so many sheep.

I shall quote from our debate of 7 October 2020 on legislative consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. In opening for the Scottish Government, Mike Russell said:

“Members will be familiar with the main provisions, but let me go through them. In parts 1 and 2, the bill contains sweeping new blanket mutual recognition and non-discrimination provisions. Regardless of the views of the Parliament or the wishes of the people of Scotland, they would require Scotland to accept lower standards relating to food, as pointed out by Food Standards Scotland; the environment, as pointed out by Scottish Environment LINK; and building materials, as pointed out by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. The scope of those powers can be unilaterally changed by UK ministers, and only by them.”

He also said:

“There are sweeping new spending powers in part 6 that threaten the devolved Scottish budget and transfer decision making over areas of devolved spending from the Scottish Government to the UK Government.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; c 67, 68.]

Thank goodness minimum unit pricing predated the act—we could not introduce that now without UK Government say-so. We cannot ban the sale of electric shock collars without UK Government permission, and we know that funding for devolved projects that was formally awarded by the EU is now dished out by the UK, taking a detour around devolution.

I turn to what Alex Rowley said—dancing on the head of a pin, and no wonder—when he opened for Labour in the same debate in 2020. It almost makes me feel sorry for him. He said:

“I want to make it clear that we will not give consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Let me be clear: we will not give support to any measures that will reduce and constrain the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

As a political party, Labour is committed to devolution. For the avoidance of doubt, the bill is a full-on attack on the existing devolution settlement.”

He went on to say:

“However, it is not just that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill breaks international law, or that it drives a coach and horses through devolution, but that it paves the way, in my view, for private and multinational companies to force their way into key public services in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; c 75, 76.]

Claudia Beamish, in closing for Labour, said:

“We will not support legislative consent for such a disrespectful and dangerous bill.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; c 94.]

My question for Labour is this: if the act is “disrespectful and dangerous”, should it not be repealed rather than reviewed? After all, that was Labour’s position less than five years ago. It betrayed the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality; it betrayed the pensioners over the universal fuel allowance; and it betrayed employers through the increased national insurance contributions, which are a jobs tax. Not repealing the internal market act is a further betrayal—this time, of devolution. Surely that is a CV fit for the television programme “The Traitors”.

Thank you. I absolutely concur with what the member said—that is strange for us both, is it not? Anyway.

The Scottish Borders partnership against rural crime brings together key organisations working together to tackle that crime, in particular the increasing threat that is posed by serious organised crime groups that operate most often to order. They cannot put a tractor or a combine harvester up for sale on eBay—they have stolen it knowing exactly where they are going to sell it. The partnership includes—as one would expect—Police Scotland, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the NFUS, Scottish Land & Estates, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the River Tweed Commission and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which are all working together to prevent and combat rural crime.

There are some measures that those in the farming community and beyond can take to help. If people see something suspicious, out of the ordinary and out of place, they can, if intervention is needed immediately, phone 999, or otherwise the 101 number, or they can report anonymously through Crimestoppers or even on the Police Scotland website. They should not, however, put themselves at risk by confronting intruders, no matter how angry and compelled to do so they may feel, because these are really serious criminals. People can put in place measures to deter and prevent such crime—for example, marking, tracking and securing their farm machinery and tools—including in the areas that are most impacted. If those measures are taken, that must surely help to reduce insurance premiums.

Indeed, many years ago, I suggested to Police Scotland that it should have a stall at the Borders shows where farmers could discreetly report their concerns, in particular about the theft of livestock. I knew that farmers often felt guilty—although they should not—because they thought that such thefts could somehow have been prevented and that they were not protecting their livestock. Farmers have to remember, however, that these criminals are well organised. They have scoped out their targets and have the delivery all in hand, even shipping abroad. It is very difficult to combat such crime, therefore, as it is not casual these days.

I ask the Scottish Government, therefore, whether it would be helpful if Police Scotland categorised rural crime as I defined earlier, thus providing invaluable data to help detect and deter. Lest we get lost in figures and data, however, I stress that each and every rural theft is personal. It is distressing to the victim or victims, and must make them feel very insecure in their remote settings—let us not forget that.

I appreciate that it is a matter for Police Scotland. I mentioned that when I addressed the point. I am sure that insurers could help, because they will know what they are insuring and whether a theft was in a rural or urban area. We should therefore start with the insurers.

Will the member take an intervention?