SUPER SNP CONFERENCE

19 Oct 2010

John Mason had a tremendous time at the SNP’s conference in Perth last weekend. He said, “I find it so encouraging to be with hundreds of other SNP activists from all over Scotland, as well as seeing the high quality of SNP government ministers on show.” Highlights were speeches by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, although John Swinney and Kenny McAskill were not far behind. All four got rousing receptions from delegates, not just for the speeches themselves but also for the solid work they have all been doing in Government.

Alex & Nicola have been a great leadership team with their contrasting and complementing styles. But John Swinney has in many ways been the power behind the throne. So many decisions have a financial impact and it is John who has held that side together so well. Whereas Labour were too timid to spend their (inadequate) budget, John Swinney and the SNP have used it much more fully (even though we are having to subsidise the UK along the way). And Kenny McAskill with his completely different and more obviously robust style has delivered on the promised extra police… and he managed to combine justice and mercy in his superb handling of the Megrahi affair.

It was great to hear about what the SNP is delivering like:
• 1,190 police officers (more than the 1,000 promised);
• 1,000 more cleaners in hospitals;
• the Council Tax freeze (compared to Labour’s raising it by 60%);
• efficiency savings achieved of £1,470 million (better than target of £1,069 million);
• Airdrie-Bathgate rail link due to open in December; and
• the M74 completion early and on budget.

Then there were the key future commitments including:
• two more years Council Tax freeze;
• the abolition of prescription charges;
• protecting frontline police officers by cutting unnecessary duplication;
• protecting frontline health services while reducing senior management numbers; and
• NO privatisation of Scottish Water.

John Mason himself spoke in debates at the Conference on replacing Council Tax with Local Income Tax, and the need to improve private sector pension arrangements while protecting those in the public sector. He also took part in the prayer service on the Sunday morning organised by ‘Christians for Independence’.

PENSIONS MUST NOT BE CUT

08 Oct 2010

Commenting on John Hutton’s interim report on pensions, John Mason has said that pension provision must not be cut. The starting point is that many employees in the private sector are not having enough put into their pension pot. This means that when they retire they will need pension credit, etc. to boost their income. Effectively this is a public subsidy of the private sector.

All of this cannot be separated from the level of the minimum wage which is presently far too low. At the present level, it is no surprise that many workers cannot put aside money for their retirement. So just as the minimum wage should be increased so that all employees can actually live on their wages, so all employers should have to contribute to pension schemes so that their ex-employees can live properly in their retirement. Employers’ contributions to pension schemes should be compulsory.

It used to be suggested that public sector employees were treated too generously as far as pension contributions were concerned. But John Hutton and his committee make it clear that the vast majority are ending up with pretty modest incomes. The exception is the highly paid employees (in both public and private sectors). As a councillor in Glasgow John saw employees earning over £100,000 per year get big pay increases shortly before they retired; this meant they benefitted disproportionately from a final salary scheme. So should there be an upper limit on public sector pensions? £30,000? £50,000?

Another factor is that when it comes to competitive tendering the private sector is unfairly able to undercut the public sector. The private sector can submit lower bid prices (for capital projects, catering, home helps, or whatever) because their pension contributions are artificially low. So forcing the private sector to pay proper pension contributions would create more of a level playing field.

In summary, the pensions problem is greater in the private sector than in the public sector. Something has to be done soon to raise the pension provision for private sector employees.

WELCOME FOR EQUALITY ACT

02 Oct 2010

John Mason has warmly welcomed the Equality Act, most of which came into force yesterday (1 October). John was heavily involved in the Equality Bill when he sat on the committee of 18 MPs examining the Bill in detail in June 2009. He said, “Although the Bill and Act made mistakes and did not go far enough in some areas, the overall thrust of the legislation is good, giving more protection to a number of groups in society.”

The Equality Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of eight protected characteristics including race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion and belief. It replaces and updates previous anti-discrimination legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act. Of course some people would feel that other forms of discrimination should have been outlawed too, e.g. it is not illegal to discriminate against someone for their political views. But the Act does seek to tackle the main forms of obvious discrimination. Again others were concerned that the legislation did not go far enough, e.g. in relation to equal pay for women, as progress in this has been painfully slow since the legislation in the 1970s.

One very contentious area was the potential clash between competing rights such as sexual orientation and religion and belief. There was support across parties for a purpose clause in the Act which would have guided the courts in interpreting the detail of the legislation but the Government of the day refused to include this. John Mason expressed at the committee the concern of some religious people that the courts often put religion at the bottom of the pile when it comes to deciding between competing rights. However, the then Solicitor General, Vera Baird, said it was not the Government’s intention to set up a hierarchy of rights.

A specific concern of John Mason’s (in a personal capacity) was that the Bill as originally tabled would have further restricted churches and other religious organisations as to whom they could employ. However, the House of Lords amended the Bill to protect religious freedom and the Government eventually accepted this.

SCOTLAND MUST HAVE OIL FUND

30 Sep 2010

It is not too late for Scotland to establish an oil fund. Clearly this should have been done earlier on and then Scotland (or even the UK) might have had national savings similar to Norway’s £300 billion. Even states or provinces like Alaska and Alberta have established such wealth funds despite not being independent countries.

Instead successive UK governments have squandered the oil wealth from the North Sea. Some 40 billion barrels of oil equivalent have been extracted from the North Sea, creating huge revenues for the UK Exchequer. But this money has been squandered on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as on nuclear weapons.

Even if there is less than than half the oil left in the North Sea, oil’s value has risen and is likely to rise further as world demand increases. So we still have a very valuable asset left. Therefore, the question remains: will we put some of these revenues aside as savings for a rainy day, or will we continue to spend, spend, spend?

This is also linked in to the wider question of borrowing and saving. For too long our government and our companies have borrowed far too much. Individuals too have been encouraged by the banks and successive London governments to borrow as much as they can. But in the long term this was never sustainable. And the chickens have come home to roost in the banking crisis and recession. Whatever we do as a society, we must not go back to borrowing at the levels we were doing before. We should be saving in the good times and putting money aside for the tough times which will inevitably come. This applies to national governments, corporations, and individuals as well.

Norway is an excellent example of this prudent approach. The sonner Scotland can break away from this profligate UK and return to our more cautious roots, the better.

And finally we have to look at interest rates. The current low rates may be good for borrowers but they are no good for thousands of small savers. John Mason has met many folk in the East End of Glasgow who have modest savings and the interest used to be a useful part of their annual income. But now the interest is virtually nil. Maybe the banks should be forced to pay a minimum decent level of interest to encourage more saving.