HM Naval Base Clyde (Investment)
To ask the Scottish Government how it would invest the £500 million that the United Kingdom Government has announced to build nuclear-armed submarine infrastructure to benefit the Scottish economy and create jobs. (S4T-01095)
The United Kingdom Government is implementing swingeing cuts to both public services and the benefits received by the most vulnerable in society. The chancellor’s announcement, therefore, and his commitment to invest a further £100 billion in a new generation of nuclear weapons clearly demonstrate that the UK Government has its priorities all wrong. The Scottish Government has set out the infrastructure priorities that we pursue through the infrastructure investment plan, which covers areas such as housing, transport, energy efficiency, schools and hospitals. Those are the priorities of the people of Scotland.
It is indeed pre-emptive and wrong-headed to spend half a billion pounds on paving the way for new nuclear weapons while people suffer hardship through welfare cuts and have to rely on food banks.
Faslane is strategically important. It is a vital naval base that can play a much more effective role in our defence without nuclear weapons. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the point of the money is to create jobs and improve people’s lives, the UK Government’s return on this investment will be very poor?
I agree with the approach and the line of argument advanced by Alison Johnstone. There is a long-term role for Faslane as a conventional naval base. It has always formed part of the Scottish Government’s and my party’s plans but, at a time when public expenditure is under such pressure and support for ensuring that our conventional defences are effective and properly funded is broad if not universal in this country, the decision to invest £500 million in, essentially, as the chancellor said yesterday, the foundations of the next generation of nuclear weapons is, in the Scottish Government’s view, the wrong decision. If it was spent on a capital investment programme, there is a variety of other ways in which the expenditure of £500 million could have a much greater, more profound and more long-lasting and beneficial effect on the lives of the people of Scotland.
On 6 August last year, the Scottish Parliament voted with the Greens for a constitutional ban on Trident and a global ban on nuclear weapons. However, George Osborne is still going ahead, and Labour continues to say that it is anti-nuclear but pro new weapons. Does the cabinet secretary agree that this investment does not respect the will of the Scottish people and will only undermine global disarmament efforts? Does he welcome the opportunity for Scottish Labour to finally get firmly behind unilateral disarmament?
It is beyond doubt that the decision that the chancellor announced yesterday completely ignores the question of respect for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. One of the points that the Prime Minister made to the First Minister immediately after the general election was that he intended to govern on the basis of respect but, unfortunately, there was no respect in Monday’s announcement. There was no respect whatsoever—no respect for the Scottish Parliament and, frankly, no respect for the Westminster Parliament either. Apparently, the Westminster Parliament is going to have a debate to decide whether to proceed with the next generation of nuclear weapons. The principle of respect has been entirely ignored by the Conservative Government.
As for the points that Alison Johnstone made about the Labour Party, I shall leave the Labour Party to speak for itself, but I think that the overwhelming majority of Labour-supporting individuals in Scotland are hostile to the new generation of Trident nuclear missiles that the UK Government proposes, and it would be good if their voices were expressed by the Labour Party in Scotland.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me and many eminent experts that Trident nuclear weapons are obsolete and play no part in addressing the terrorism that happens now, and that spending this kind of money when we are supposed to be in austerity, according to Mr Osborne, is disgraceful and terrible for the people who are suffering just now with the cuts that are coming from Westminster?
I agree with Sandra White’s point about the United Kingdom Government’s wrong priorities, given the pressure on the public finances and the fact that conventional defence forces are not receiving the support that they require to enable them to safely do the job that we expect of them.
Sandra White made a strategic point. We live in a very troubled world. There are various conflicts around the world, and nuclear weapons are not protecting us or contributing towards the stabilisation of those conditions. That is one of the many reasons why the Scottish Government believes that there is no place for nuclear weapons in our society.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that the UK Government’s £500 million investment in Faslane is also for jetties and ship lifts to accommodate additional submarines? That flows from Gordon Brown’s decision to consolidate all the UK’s submarine fleet at Faslane. Surely, given the Scottish National Party’s plans to make Faslane home to the Scottish navy—whatever size that would be—that investment in infrastructure would be welcome. Does the cabinet secretary agree with his own words when he said that he would use the money to invest in conventional defence or those of Nicola Sturgeon when she said that the money would be invested in education? Who should we believe?
I might have known that Gordon Brown would be responsible for all this. He seems to be responsible for everything disastrous that has happened around us over many years.
It says it all that Jackie Baillie is coming here as the cheerleader for an announcement that the Conservative Government made on Monday. Of course, she is just continuing the role that she has occupied for some years as the Conservatives’ cheerleader in this Parliament. It is nice that, after the summer break, some things are back to normal. It took only 11 minutes after Parliament reconvened to have that confirmed.
Jackie Baillie knows that this Government’s priorities are to invest in our housing infrastructure to create homes for our people, in the transport infrastructure to connect our communities, in our population’s energy efficiency needs to reduce energy costs and in our schools and hospitals, and to ensure that we meet at every turn the needs and expectations of the people of Scotland.
Given that the population of Argyll and Bute is projected to decline sharply over the next few years, a subject that we debated recently in the Parliament, does the minister accept that many people there are delighted with yesterday’s announcement by the chancellor, which will help to create and secure many thousands of valuable jobs, including many construction jobs? The new infrastructure will allow the number of staff based at Faslane to rise to 8,200 by 2022. Is that not a good thing?
I think that Mr McGrigor is utterly out of touch with the people of Argyll and Bute.
I am not.
I have spent a good proportion of the summer in Argyll and Bute, both on my personal holidays and on Government business.
You were in a canoe in Tiree.
Order.
The issue that the people of Argyll and Bute raised with me was digital connectivity. Would it not be better if we spent £500 million on that, on ferry infrastructure or on improving the Rest and Be Thankful road, which Mr Russell has championed so effectively? Perhaps those are the priorities of the people of Argyll and Bute priorities, and not our society wasting money on the next generation of nuclear missiles.
Work Capability Assessments
To ask the Scottish Government what information it has on how many people in Scotland died between December 2011 and February 2014 shortly after a work capability assessment found them fit for work. (S4T-01090)
The Scottish Government does not hold information on the number of deaths in Scotland relating to the United Kingdom Government’s work capability assessment. However, I have today written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking for a breakdown of the figures in Scotland. Clearly, any causality between the assessment and anyone taking their own life would be a very disturbing and serious situation. It would be intolerable.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time that Iain Duncan Smith adhered to the so-called respect agenda between the Governments and came to this Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee to answer our many questions on the sanctions regime, cuts to tax credits and disability payments, and the shocking deaths of those found fit for work by his Government?
I absolutely agree. The lack of respect not just from Iain Duncan Smith but from other ministers in his department and the UK Government generally entirely undercuts and undermines its claim to treat this Parliament and the people of Scotland with respect. I would have thought that it would be highly appropriate for the secretary of state to come and explain the reasons for his policies to the Welfare Reform Committee. I am absolutely sure that, if he were to listen to some of the evidence received by the committee, it would persuade him to change course completely.
Does the cabinet secretary share my concern, given Iain Duncan Smith’s recent announcement of his plans, that there are likely to be cuts to disability payments for 43 per cent of the people who are currently in receipt of employment and support allowance?
When we consider the welfare cuts in their totality, I think that it is generally accepted that the people who suffer the most are families and disabled people. On the impact on Scotland generally, the United Kingdom Government’s package of welfare cuts will reduce welfare spending by just under £2.5 billion in 2015-16 alone, which by any standard is a major attack on the living standards of the most vulnerable members of our community.
National Museums Scotland (Pay Dispute)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with National Museums Scotland regarding the on-going pay dispute. (S4T-01096)
National Museums Scotland held talks with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and unions on 21 August. National Museums Scotland has kept the Scottish Government informed of the outcome of the talks and the impact of the industrial action the following week. As the employer, NMS is keen to maintain dialogue through ACAS, with a view to resolving the pay dispute; I strongly encourage that course of action.
Is the cabinet secretary concerned that the dispute has been running for more than 18 months and that the NMS agreed to call in ACAS only on the eve of the strike last week? Surely there should have been intervention far earlier. There is now a huge turnover of staff in the department and there is a two-tier wage structure, which must surely be unacceptable to the Scottish Government.
Sarah Boyack is right to say that the issue has a long history. The new contracts for new employees were implemented almost five years ago, and I think that it took a further three years for the Public and Commercial Services Union to take up the issue of industrial action.
On attempts to resolve the issue, proposals have been put forward on tackling issues to do with low pay. I make it clear that NMS complies with the Government’s pay policy and implements the living wage.
I encourage NMS and the unions to engage with ACAS. It is unfortunate that, with talks with ACAS scheduled, there was industrial action. The matter must be taken seriously; I have asked NMS to take it seriously, and I hope that the proposals that have been put forward constructively are engaged with. It is unfortunate, but I do not think that PCS members are yet aware of those offers.
My understanding, having talked to some of the staff on the picket line last week, is that some low-paid members have been asked to donate some of their salary to other low-paid members. How can that be acceptable? If affordability is the issue, how can the cabinet secretary think it acceptable for the Government to spend £150,000 on a commercially viable, profit-making enterprise such as T in the Park, rather than sorting out a long-term and debilitating dispute that is doing reputational damage?
To introduce a new weekend allowance for staff would cost £1.2 million over the next spending review. I point out that, although the previous spending review period began at the time of the changes back in 2010-11, there has been no request since then, from any member of this Parliament, to implement a change and provide the £1.2 million that would be required to do what PCS is asking for.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for agreeing to meet me to discuss the on-going dispute at National Museums Scotland. However, the mood of the workforce who I met on the picket line last week is steadfast in opposing the two-tier workforce structure that has been imposed by the management without appropriate consultation.
Will the cabinet secretary take further steps to encourage parties to come to a resolution that ensures fairness in the workplace and brings to an end a dispute that is damaging the reputation of the national museums of Scotland and which has gone on for far too long?
The member will be aware that I have met PCS, FDA and Prospect, and also National Museums Scotland. Indeed, a number of the issues that the unions raised with me have been dealt with, including the Scottish living wage for National Museums Scotland Enterprises. It is not part of the Government’s pay policy, but it now has the living wage. The issue around no compulsory redundancies has also been addressed.
Low pay is an important issue for all areas. We should also consider that the bill for the fixed costs of NMS, including staffing, is 76 per cent of the grant in aid. Given the reductions in the Scottish Government’s budgets, it has been very difficult for many cultural organisations to meet their responsibilities, including providing uplift when required under the pay policy, despite pay freezes.
We must resolve this issue. I want it to be resolved, but I think that the best way of doing that is to bring people together and continue the on-going ACAS discussions.
I ask Neil Findlay to be brief.
Why is it okay for the cabinet secretary to find £150,000 for T in the Park but nothing to settle this two-year-long dispute? Will she answer that directly, please?
Many jobs are dependent on a successful, on-going T in the Park. Many people across the country would think that to provide £150,000 for that event to ensure its viability is the right decision, and people have said that to me. In order to address the issue that Neil Findlay has raised a number of times—Jim Eadie has also raised it and asked to meet me, and I have personally addressed it with the unions—we would have to find £394,000 a year to address an increase and provide an additional allowance.
Proposals are on the table to address the issue of low pay in the sector. I hope that every employer—whether they are in the public sector, a charity, as is the case with National Museums Scotland, or in another sector—is seeking to resolve that. However, it is a real task. An offer has been provided to PCS. I encourage it to get round the table to discuss the matter with ACAS and address it.
Previous
Business Motion