Engagements
Later today, it will give me great pleasure to officially reopen the Scottish national portrait gallery in Edinburgh. We should think of the great work of Glasgow City Council on the Riverside museum, the Robert Burns museum, the palace at Stirling castle, the new national museum in Edinburgh and the Victoria and Albert building to come in Dundee, and we should all, on this day after St Andrew’s day, welcome what will be another fantastic jewel in Scotland’s cultural crown.
This does not apply to the First Minister or to me, but I hope that some of his colleagues, some of mine and others will realise that it is December and will find time today to shave off their Movember moustaches. They are to be congratulated on their fundraising, but enough is enough.
If Iain Gray had been at the debate yesterday, he would have heard Mr Swinney refute that point, which was initially made by a Tory researcher, I think. It is no great surprise that Iain Gray is now using lines from Tory researchers. What Iain Gray said was not the point of the particular document.
We opposed the UK pension changes and we still do. The question is: if the SNP opposes them, why is it simply implementing them as asked by the UK Government?
Iain Gray must surely remember his remark on BBC Online during the election campaign that there would have to be public sector wage restraint for the next three years. That is the position that he put forward during the election campaign. In September, in answer to Mr Swinney’s point that we would lose £500 million if we did not implement the UK Government’s policy, Iain Gray’s spokesman said that he appreciated and supported the Scottish Government’s position as far as the UK Government’s pension changes were concerned. If Iain Gray thinks that we can find £500 million in response to Danny Alexander’s blackmail letter, he had better start telling the chamber exactly where it is going to come from.
That response contained a lot of ways to avoid saying yes—the First Minister is going to pass on the 1 per cent pay cap. Two days ago, I heard John Swinney on the radio doing everything to avoid saying a simple yes. However, that is the answer. The Tories cut public sector pay and the SNP implements the cut; the Tories cut pensions and the SNP implements the cut; the Tories cut public sector jobs and the SNP implements the cut, only deeper and faster; and the Tories cut capital expenditure and, yes, the SNP implements that cut as well, only again deeper and faster. What, then, is the difference between the Tories and the SNP?
Iain Gray now says that he supports the strikers, but Ed Miliband opposes the strike. Iain Gray refuses to go into work in the Scottish Parliament, but Ed Miliband goes into work in Westminster. I know that Iain is on the way out as Labour leader in Scotland, but I think that there should be a little bit of co-ordination between him and his colleagues at Westminster.
We know that the First Minister would like more financial powers. For example, he would like powers over corporation tax—and why? Because he wants to cut taxes for banks and big business even further than the Tories want to cut them. I hear the meandering bluster, but I see the cuts to pensions, jobs and pay. Is it not true that we know a man’s heart by his actions? On pensions, public sector jobs and pay cuts, 300,000 Scots took a stand yesterday—and, yes, we took a stand with them. When will Alex Salmond stand up for what he says and stop just doing Tory bidding every time?
Where do I start? Iain Gray’s predecessor, Wendy Alexander, supported the devolution of corporation tax to this Parliament if it was devolved to Northern Ireland and, this week, one of Iain Gray’s potential successors, Ken Macintosh, told us that he intends to cut and end the small business bonus scheme. Not only is there no synchronisation between Labour at Westminster and in Scotland, but there is no synchronisation whatsoever between Labour’s past leader, its present leader and one of the—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Ken Macintosh will have to wait a few weeks before he can adopt that position.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.
The First Minister likes to claim the credit when he thinks that something is better in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but will he step up to the mark when Scotland is falling behind? Families who have young children in England receive 20 per cent more free childcare for their three and four-year-olds than those in Scotland—they get 15 hours a week and we get 12.5 hours. This week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer extended free provision to more than 250,000 two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds south of the border. Evidence shows that the early years are the most crucial time in a child’s development. I believe that young families deserve support, particularly in the current tough times.
I know that the First Minister is keen, but he can answer in a minute.
The reason why I was so anxious to answer was to say to Ruth Davidson that, during this morning’s debate, several of her colleagues complimented the Scottish Government on its approach to early intervention. As we roll out the early intervention fund, she will find that our support for young families not only matches what is being done south of the border, however belatedly, but is a substantial enhancement in early intervention for families and young people.
Great. I will claim that as a partial victory for Scotland’s families, but now I want to know when and how that will be implemented. I invite the First Minister and his cabinet secretary to a meeting with me and my team to take forward the issue to help Scotland’s families. It is time that we turned words into action, so will the First Minister meet me before Christmas to discuss the issue?
Is it the whole team that we will have to meet? It is approaching Christmas, so let me be gracious: of course I shall meet the leader of the Conservative Party and whichever members of her numerous team she wants to bring along.
I call Jamie McGrigor to ask a constituency question.
The First Minister will be aware of today’s closure of the A83 trunk road in both directions following yet another landslide at the Rest and be Thankful. Given that the A83 is the key road route into and out of large parts of Argyll, including Dunoon, Campbeltown and Kintyre, can the First Minister assure me that the Scottish Government will do everything in its power to ensure that the road is reopened as soon as possible and that action will be taken to prevent further such landslides, which are potentially devastating for the Argyll and Bute economy?
Yes, I can. With your permission, Presiding Officer, I will say a bit about the extent of the difficulties on the A83.
The First Minister will be aware of the situation in Glasgow regarding arm’s-length external organisations. What discussions has the Government had with Glasgow City Council on the review of arm’s-length companies, and on how it will impact on front-line services?
That is a matter for Glasgow City Council. A number of concerns have been raised, and perhaps I could arrange for a meeting between the constituency member and the relevant minister to see how we can take the matter forward, although it has to be said that it is a local government matter.
SELECT, the electrical employers organisation, and Unite, the union, are speaking with one voice about the provocative and intimidatory actions of rogue employers in the sector, led by Balfour Beatty. Will the First Minister take an urgent personal interest in that matter, so that we can avoid a crisis this winter in the already struggling construction industry?
If the member wants to come forward with the information, perhaps I can arrange a meeting between him—and any other representatives he wants to bring along—and Mr Swinney, to see whether there is anything that the Scottish Government can do to facilitate a settlement of the potential dispute.
Cabinet (Meetings)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Last month, I asked the First Minister when he would make up his mind on college funding. Last week, the National Union of Students launched a campaign called our future our fight. It hopes to protect college student support and teaching quality, and to stop cuts to college places, yet Angus College now fears that 400 places could be lost, with another 9,000 being lost across the country. The First Minister’s Government is proposing a £40 million cut to colleges, yet it has more than £67 million in extra money available and unallocated. It is a simple equation. Will the First Minister today join those who want to protect Scotland’s colleges, join the dots in his own Government and tell us that he will use part of that £67 million to help colleges and their students?
Willie Rennie says that these are simple calculations. I point out that the statements that we have seen, up to and including Tuesday, have had some positive consequentials for the Scottish budget. They have also had negative consequentials, which the United Kingdom Government has to date been unwilling to specify. For example, the assumption of a 1 per cent cap on public sector pay, which was in the autumn statement, will have serious negative consequentials for the Scottish budget. It is therefore understandable, wise and indeed essential that Mr Swinney, as finance secretary, looks at the overall balance and the impact of those measures before he comes to his conclusions and makes his announcement to the Parliament. Anything else would be particularly strange.
I welcomed that announcement this morning. The First Minister made that announcement this morning; why can he not make the announcement on the colleges as well? It is completely unacceptable that he is treating colleges in this way. He made a 10-minute speech this morning on youth unemployment, but there was not a single word in it about extra funds for the colleges. He spent six minutes arguing about statistics. Surely the only two statistics that matter are, first, the fact that he has at least £67 million that he was not expecting when he published his plans and, secondly, the fact that he was planning to cut college funding by £40 million. He no longer has to do that. Why cannot he save the day by simply making up his mind? Why the dodge? Why the delay?
Fair-minded people looking at college funding will look at both revenue and capital funding. For example, in 2002-03, when Iain Gray was an education minister, the college capital budget was £21 million in total. In 2013-14, thanks to the introduction of the non-profit-distributing programme and the major renovations supporting the college reorganisation across Scotland, the figure will be £138 million—an increase by a factor of almost seven.
Take some responsibility.
I am just pointing out to Willie Rennie what is actually happening south of the border. The importance of that is that, until we achieve financial independence, our budget in Scotland is, unfortunately, dependent on decisions that are made elsewhere. That is why I think that, when any Liberal Democrat or Conservative comes to this chamber and starts to weep crocodile tears for investment in public service in Scotland, they will be either laughed at by public sector workers or given the same treatment as Danny Alexander was given yesterday.
Autumn Budget Statement
The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the United Kingdom Government’s plan A, south of the border, is clearly not working. It has resulted in slower growth, higher unemployment and deeper spending cuts.
Following George Osborne’s admission of defeat on his economic plan A, and the miserable legacy of the Labour Party, which created this economic crisis, does the First Minister agree that it is high time that this Parliament was given the necessary financial powers to run its own affairs, so that Scotland does not have to be burdened by a union dividend of economic doom and gloom?
Yes, I do.
The First Minister will be aware of the £100 million allocation that has been made for superfast broadband in our cities, while many people in our rural areas have no broadband at all. Will he make representations for a change of focus for that funding towards rural areas, particularly the Highlands and Islands, to ensure that that project benefits people in our most rural communities?
I support the nature of that question. In many ways, the allocation to broadband was disappointing. We have prioritised the requirement and need for superfast broadband to be rolled out across the country, hence the £140 million investment. I would be delighted if the member would meet the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment to talk about that point. It is a highly important issue to the development of not only the rural areas of Scotland, but Scotland as a whole.
I feel that the First Minister was slightly ungracious in relation to the autumn statement. Will he reverse that and welcome the announcements on fuel duty, credit easing, the youth contract and the additional capital spend that we will get in Scotland?
I wish that Gavin Brown had listened to my earlier answer before he made that point. He is asking me to welcome the fact that the reduction in capital spending has been reduced from £3.7 billion to £3 billion. In the Scrooge-like world of the inner recesses of the Conservative Party, a reduction of only £3 billion is something to be rejoiced at and welcomed, but in the streets and homes of Scotland people want to see a Scottish economy that is increasing investment at this time in order to bring our people back into employment. That is the sort of thing that we will welcome.
Human Trafficking
Human trafficking is an abhorrent crime and the Scottish Government is committed to making further progress in tackling the criminals who engage in it. The recent report from Helena Kennedy’s Equality and Human Rights Commission acknowledges that the Scottish Government has taken important steps in recent years in anti-trafficking and helpfully sets out recommendations for further action.
I thank the First Minister for that answer, particularly in the light, as Helena Kennedy says in her report, of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games. There is some urgency around ensuring that our approach to human trafficking is correct, and Baroness Kennedy raises a number of concerns about the interaction between police and the United Kingdom Border Agency, the low awareness of trafficking in Scotland, the definition in law where two offences exist for the same crime, lack of intelligence, lack of prosecution expertise and lack of services for victims.
I shall speak to the business manager to allow that to happen. Let me quote the words of Baroness Kennedy in a letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice:
In a recent report on migration and trafficking by this Parliament’s Equal Opportunities Committee, UKBA was harshly criticised for the way in which it determines the status of a trafficked person. The report called for the status of individuals who are suspected of having been trafficked to be determined by local government social work services. Does the First Minister agree that there is a need now to have these issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament?
I have heard a number of reactions to points being made about why this Parliament should have additional powers, but I cannot for the life of me see why a request, for obvious reasons, for this Parliament to have the powers that we would wish for, as a national Parliament, so that we can work for the benefit of all our people, should be greeted with cries of, “Shame.” The Labour members who do that are allowing their antipathy to the Scottish National Party and their difficulty in adjusting to their reduced, minority position in Scottish politics to get the better of them. When people make reasonable points, give them a reasonable response.
Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011
The double jeopardy legislation, which came into force on Monday, sets out the circumstances in which it will be possible to retry an acquitted person. It was always envisaged that the act will be used only in exceptional cases—in particular, where there is new evidence which, had it been available before, would have been highly likely to have led to a conviction. Specific cases, of course, are a matter for law officers, particularly the Lord Advocate, who exercises his prosecution functions independently of other ministers.
I thank the First Minister for that reply, but does he consider that the enactment of the double jeopardy legislation, along with the potential abolition of corroboration, which Lord Carloway has recommended, raises concerns that the interaction of those two measures might make prosecutors and, indeed, the police less rigorous in gathering evidence for trial? To put it bluntly, will that give the Crown Office a second go if it gets it wrong in the first place? If the First Minister shares my concerns, will he give the Parliament an assurance that we will be given time to consider that implication?
Lord Carloway has provided an in-depth report, and I agree that there will need to be a period of reflection, analysis and consideration following its publication. The Scottish Government will work closely with the Parliament and the wider legal community as it moves towards a coherent package of reform.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would not wish the First Minister to get off to a bad start in misinterpreting my questions, statements or policies, so I will assume that it was a genuine misunderstanding.
That is not a point of order, but you have made your position clear to the chamber.