logo
Robison unable to rule out compulsory redundancies

Robison unable to rule out compulsory redundancies

The long-delayed report, which was supposed to be published last month, says that without action, Scotland faces a £2.6bn gap in resource spending and £2.1bn in capital spending by 2029–30.
READ MORE
Alongside the MTFS, the Government published a Fiscal Sustainability Delivery Plan, setting out how ministers hope to close that gap.
Specific measures include reducing the public sector workforce by an average of 0.5% annually.
With 469,100 full-time equivalent staff on the books, this would be the equivalent of around 11,611 full-time workers by the end of the decade.
Forbes, Swinney and Robison outside the chamber (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA) The move should lead to savings of £700m annually, and ministers are confident it can be achieved through staff turnover and a freeze on recruitment.
However, speaking in Holyrood, the Finance Secretary, Shona Robison, was unable to say there would be no compulsory redundancies.
Answering a question from Labour's Daniel Johnston, the minister said: "I have been engaging with the unions and the STUC around this, is that no compulsory redundancy maintains to be the default position.
"But as a last resort, once all steps have been taken through voluntary severance, through redeployment, if there is no other route and there are no jobs for those people involved, then the compulsory redundancy can be considered, but only at the end of that route.
"So we believe that these reductions can be made through natural attrition and voluntary severance, and it is only in that extreme position that that would be enabled, and we don't see that happening in very many cases."
Public sector wages represent 55% of Scotland's resource budget. Pay agreements in 2025–26, including NHS workers' 4.25% increase, have already exceeded the Government's 3% guideline.
Alongside the strategy and the plan, the Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC) published its latest economic and fiscal updates.
The watchdog said that the total funding available to the Scottish Government will rise from £61.3bn in 2026–27 to £66.5bn by 2029–30.
However, after accounting for inflation, this represents an increase of only 0.8% per year in real terms.
Next year, the Scottish Government's day-to-day spending will be £54bn, but after subtracting social security costs, only £46.3bn will remain.
By 2029–30, this will increase slightly to £50.1bn.
Ms Robison blamed the financial settlement from Westminster, pointing to a £400m shortfall triggered by the Labour Government's refusal to fully fund increased employer National Insurance contributions.
She said changes to welfare payments could cost Scotland an extra £440m by 2029–30.
"Managing the impact of Westminster austerity is all too familiar," Ms Robison told MSPs.
"We continue to invest in the people of Scotland, supporting a better-paid public sector, delivering high-quality public services and providing welfare support not available elsewhere in the UK. And we have managed this while balancing the budget every year."
Beyond cutting the workforce, the Government believes it can save between £600m and £1.5bn each year over the next five years by adopting new technology, increasing automation, and encouraging closer working between public agencies.
Around 12,000 civil service jobs to go (Image: PA)
The Government will also carefully reassess infrastructure spending due to high inflation in construction costs.
Ms Robison confirmed she would publish a multi-year Scottish Spending Review alongside December's budget.
The other key pillars of the plan to tackle the black hole are growth and tax.
On economic growth, the minister said the Government would aim to increase business activity to broaden the tax base, while on taxation, she hinted at a potential wealth tax, with the Government committing to the publication of a literature review on the measure.
Labour finance spokesman Michael Marra pointed to the £9.1bn extra coming to the Scottish Government in the coming years as a result of UK Government decisions.
'Today is the day years of gross mismanagement of the public finances by SNP ministers caught up with them – and the price is being paid by ordinary Scots,' he said.
'Let's be crystal clear, by no definition other than the SNP's can the budget they receive be described as austerity.
'The reason this Government is making cuts is because they have spectacularly mismanaged Scotland's budget.
'It's SNP ministers who have created a structural deficit of a staggering £2.6bn – that's a result of choices that you made.'
READ MORE
Scottish Conservative finance spokesman Craig Hoy said the workforce reduction target 'lacks ambition and detail.'
He told MSPs: 'The last medium-term financial strategy was over two years ago – last year's was binned and this year's was delayed.
'By slipping out this year's strategy just before recess, we have no time to properly scrutinise this plan.
'But what we do know is that without radical action on public sector reform, on health and on labour force trends, Scots face substantially higher taxes or a state that does less.
'But the projected £5bn fiscal gap by the end of the decade is not Westminster's fault or responsibility, it is the SNP's.'
David Phillips, an Associate Director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said "tougher financial choices" were still to come.
He said the £2.6bn a year funding gap was "roughly equivalent to spending on Scottish police and fire services, or the revenue from increasing all rates of income tax in Scotland by around four percentage points."
"As the MTFS and SFC make clear, current forecasts for the contribution of devolved tax revenues to the Scottish Budget are likely optimistic, as they assume earnings grow significantly faster in Scotland than in the rest of the UK from 2026–27 onwards.
"All else equal, if earnings instead grew at the same rate as in the rest of the UK, the 'funding gap' for day-to-day spending would be closer to £3.5bn."
He said the multi-year spending review would also have to say which services will be cut back in order to protect spending on the Scottish Government's key priorities – poverty, climate change, economic growth, and effective public services.
"This will likely require steep cuts to some other 'non-priority' areas, and a laser-like focus on how effective spending actually is – not all spending on the Government's priorities can and should survive the chop.
"Indeed, the scale of the fiscal challenge could necessitate the Scottish Government to make trade-offs between its four priorities."
"The fiscal challenge facing Scotland is large and real. So as the current Government and opposition parties begin to set out their election pitch to voters, it will be vital to scrutinise what their plans would mean for Scotland's finances," he added.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Government demands investigation after Lindsey oil refinery owner collapses
Government demands investigation after Lindsey oil refinery owner collapses

Powys County Times

time32 minutes ago

  • Powys County Times

Government demands investigation after Lindsey oil refinery owner collapses

The Government has called for an urgent investigation after the group behind one of Britain's largest oil refineries collapsed into administration, putting hundreds of jobs at risk. State Oil – the parent company of Prax Group, which owns the Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire – appointed administrators on Monday. A separate winding-up order has also been made against the Lindsey oil refinery and related businesses and a liquidator has been appointed. More than 180 staff are employed by State Oil, while it is thought that around another 420 work at the Lindsey refinery. Energy minister Michael Shanks called on the company's owner to 'put his hands in his pockets and deliver proper compensation for the workers'. He said the Government is demanding an investigation into the conduct of the company's directors and the circumstances surrounding its failure. The Lindsey site is one of only five large oil refineries remaining in the UK after the recent closure of the Grangemouth plant in Scotland. Prax Group is led by majority owner and chairman and chief executive Sanjeev Kumar Soosaipillai, who bought the Lindsey oil refinery from French firm Total in 2021. Mr Shanks vowed to 'ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security' and said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband 'is today writing to the Insolvency Service to demand an immediate investigation into the conduct of the directors and the circumstances surrounding this insolvency'. He later told the Commons: 'The Government believes the business's leadership have a responsibility to the workers and the local community, and we are calling on them to do the right thing and provide support to the workers through this difficult period. 'The wealthy owner cannot wash his hands of his obligations to the workers and their families, and that's why we are calling on him to put his hands in his pockets and deliver proper compensation for the workers.' Mr Shanks added the Government was told about commercial difficulties 'at the end of April', with the refinery having 'recorded a total of around £75 million worth of losses between its acquisition in 2021 and the financial year ending in February 2024'. He said: 'The Secretary of State was reassured by the company that there was no immediate closure risk to the refinery. A week ago, the business changed their position and said they feared it could no longer be a going concern. 'We repeatedly asked them at official and ministerial level what the financial gap was, to work out whether the Government could help bridge that gap, but the company were unable to share that basic information.' Trade union Unite said the Government needed to urgently intervene to help protect UK fuel supplies and jobs. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: 'The Lindsey oil refinery is strategically important and the Government must intervene immediately to protect workers and fuel supplies. 'Unite has constantly warned the Government that its policies have placed the oil and gas industry on a cliff edge.' Built in 1968, the Lindsey refinery can process around 113,000 barrels of oil a day. Clare Boardman, joint administrator of State Oil and Prax, said: 'We appreciate that this is a very difficult and uncertain time for the employees and everyone involved and we will be on site to support them during this challenging period. 'We will be considering all options for the group, including the prospect of a sale for the group's upstream business and retail operations in the UK and Europe, all of which remain outside of insolvency. 'We thank the group's team members and other stakeholders for their continued support.'

Lisa Nandy hits out at BBC leadership over Glastonbury live stream
Lisa Nandy hits out at BBC leadership over Glastonbury live stream

South Wales Argus

timean hour ago

  • South Wales Argus

Lisa Nandy hits out at BBC leadership over Glastonbury live stream

The Culture Secretary said 'several' editorial failures 'becomes a problem of leadership', during a statement to the Commons on Monday. It came after rapper Bobby Vylan led crowds at the festival's West Holts Stage in chants of 'free, free Palestine' and 'death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)' on Saturday. Ms Nandy said the Government is 'exasperated' with the 'lack of account from the leadership', as MPs from across the chamber called for accountability. Bobby Vylan performing at Glastonbury Festival (Ben Birchall/PA) In a statement on the BBC and Glastonbury, she said 'problems with broadcasts' at the festival 'should have been foreseeable'. Labour MP Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) said: 'How are Jews such as myself, in this country, to be reassured about the editorial processes of the BBC? And who on Earth will be held accountable for this error?' Ms Nandy replied: 'He makes an extremely important point about accountability, and that is something that is not lost on me as the Secretary of State, and something that I've impressed upon the BBC leadership as well. 'When you have one editorial failure, it's something that must be gripped. When you have several, it becomes a problem of leadership.' Conservative former minister John Glen said: 'I think we all in this place understand the fine editorial judgments that the BBC and their staff have to make, but this is of a completely different order, and when people are losing faith in the great institutions of this country, could I urge the Secretary of State, in her follow-up conversations that … the BBC actually identified accountability to individuals?' He added: 'Somebody didn't follow that guidance, and I think the country expects people to be held individually to account for why they fail to do their job properly.' Ms Nandy replied: 'I think people do expect people to be held to account for the way that they do their jobs, be that on the front line or at senior levels. It's a point that I've made to the BBC. 'They will have heard what he said and what (Mr Prinsley) said as well about accountability, and it's a point that I will continue to press.' Jim Allister, TUV MP for North Antrim, described the live stream as 'an appalling pro-terrorist broadcast', adding: 'The BBC deliberately chose not to cut the broadcast, perhaps therefore it's time for Government to consider cutting the licence fee?' Ms Nandy replied: 'He will know that this Government supports the BBC. We believe it is an important institution. 'That is why we are so disappointed that this has happened, why we have been so exasperated with the lack of account from the leadership, not just about this, but about a previous Gaza documentary and a number of other issues as well. 'The BBC is one of the most important institutions in our country, and that is the reason why it is held to the highest of standards.' Conservative MP Dame Caroline Dinenage, who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said: 'I wonder if the Secretary of State could say what explanation the BBC has given for why this live stream wasn't cut? 'Now it can't be for lack of staff on the ground. They took a reported 400 people to Glastonbury at the weekend. What were they all doing?' Ms Nandy replied: 'I think she's right to raise the question of what the number of staff who were present at the Glastonbury Festival, or working on the broadcast, were doing. 'But I do think this also raises very, very serious questions at the highest levels of the BBC about the operational oversight and the way in which editorial standards are understood and reflected in the decisions that are made by individual staff.' Shadow culture secretary Stuart Andrew called for an independent inquiry, claiming the BBC 'has repeatedly failed to call out antisemitic rhetoric, when it emerges under the guise of political commentary, and has faced serious allegations of minimising attacks on Jewish communities'. Ms Nandy replied: 'What I want to see from the BBC, and I know he shares this, is rapid action to make sure this cannot happen again.' She also claimed an Independent MP was 'aligning himself with antisemites'. Ayoub Khan, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, had accused the Government of 'hypocrisy' because it did not make a statement when Israeli football fans 'were chanting 'death to all Arabs'' in November last year. Ms Nandy said she 'could not disagree more', adding: 'I think every member of this House will utterly condemn chants of 'death to all Arabs' – it's disgusting and disgraceful.' She continued: 'The reason I have brought a statement to the House today is because our national broadcaster, which is funded by the licence fee, which is paid by the public in this country, has broadcast something that is deeply, deeply offensive to a community in this country, that has made many, many people feel and may actually have made them unsafe. 'Can I just say to him that as a longstanding supporter of justice for the Palestinians, he does nothing for the Palestinian cause by aligning himself with antisemites.' In a point of order, Mr Khan said: 'At no stage have I said in my question or statement that I was aligning myself to anyone at that Glastonbury event.'

Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss

Rhyl Journal

timean hour ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss

Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.' Foreign minister Lord Collins of Highbury said the agreement secured the future of the military base and had the support of key allies. He told the chamber: 'This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.' Peers rejected by 205 votes to 185, majority 20, a Tory attempt to get the House to oppose the treaty's ratification, which would have forced the Government to make a statement on why the deal should still be approved.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store