First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2932)
Later today, I will meet the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, who is visiting the global asset management firm Blackrock Investment Management. Blackrock is establishing its new global centre for fund accounting in Edinburgh, creating up to 250 jobs. I am sure that the whole chamber will wish to welcome the project and Blackrock’s on-going expansion, which is a substantial boost to the financial services sector in Scotland.
The fiasco of the gathering continues to dog the First Minister’s reputation. Around £700,000 of taxpayers’ money was lost. According to Jim Mather, in a reply to a parliamentary question, the First Minister called Steve Cardownie, the Scottish National Party group leader on the City of Edinburgh Council, on 9 October 2009. Mr Mather says that in that call the First Minister discussed with Mr Cardownie
“the financial difficulties of The Gathering 2009 Ltd”.—[Official Report, Written Answers Report, 10 January 2011; S3W-36917.]
Is that true?
If I remember correctly, the call was to invite the City of Edinburgh Council to a meeting, which took place. These matters were examined extensively in committee. The answers that I gave there are the answers that stand. I was happy to appear before the parliamentary committee that dealt with the issue and to answer its questions. I suggest that Iain Gray consults the record to inform himself.
I have consulted the record, and these matters have been looked at extensively. The trouble is that questions remain to be answered. Mr Mather says that the First Minister discussed the financial difficulties of The Gathering 2009 Ltd with Mr Cardownie, but on 3 November Mr Cardownie told the Public Audit Committee, with reference to the same call:
“The First Minister did not apprise me over the telephone as to what the issue was.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 3 November 2010; c 2119.]
Mr Mather and Mr Cardownie cannot both be right. The First Minister was on the call. It is his reputation that is on the line. Who is telling the truth?
I point out that Councillor Cardownie is the representative in Edinburgh who is in charge of events, hence the call to him. As Iain Gray has consulted the record, he will realise that I invited a range of other people to the meeting, which was held in St Andrew’s house. The subject and purpose of the meeting were the future of the gathering and to see how we could sustain the event, which generated £10 million for the Scottish economy, and how it could go forward in the future.
As I said before the committee, I regret that we were unable to follow through on a plan that would have both secured the future of the gathering for the city of Edinburgh and recompensed the outstanding creditors. However, surely Iain Gray is not seriously suggesting that inviting the City of Edinburgh Council and other people to a meeting with the intention of doing two things—securing the financial future of the event and securing the event for the future of the Scottish economy, for which it generated £10 million—is in any sense a bad thing. That is the sort of thing that Governments should be doing. Incidentally, if the committee had found anything untoward about the series of answers that I gave, no doubt its members would have wanted to pursue the matter. Rather than second-guess what the committee did and did not do, Iain Gray should accept that the Government’s intention was to secure the future of an event that generated £10 million for the Scottish economy.
Knowing what to believe matters here. What followed from the meeting that the First Minister refers to was a press release, written by the First Minister’s officials but issued by the City of Edinburgh Council. It contained the sentence:
“DEMA”—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr Gray is entitled to ask about whatever subject he wishes to ask about.
I can understand why the First Minister does not want us to keep pursuing this issue. The press release contains this sentence:
“DEMA”—
that is, the council—
“will take on The Gathering 2009 Ltd’s remaining private-sector obligations”.
One hundred and three small businesses that are owed money believed that commitment. However, the SNP council leader now denies that he ever made that promise. While the First Minister and his SNP colleague in the city chambers are playing pass the parcel, the creditors are carrying the can. Who is liable for those obligations—Steve Cardownie and the council, or the First Minister and the Scottish Government?
For no other reason than that it is a point of fact—and, if one is asking a series of questions, it is reasonably important to try to get a few facts right—Steve Cardownie is the deputy leader of the City of Edinburgh Council. As I understand it, the leader of the City of Edinburgh Council is a Liberal Democrat. That is just a point of straight fact. I know that Iain Gray has a great attachment to a factual basis for questions—[Interruption.]
Order.
The committee report examines the matter of the council press release in some detail, and I think that Iain Gray should again familiarise himself with the contents of the report that the committee concluded.
I am struggling to understand. If Iain Gray wants to ask as many questions as he chooses on this matter from now until the end of this parliamentary session, then fair enough. However, I suspect that a number of people in Scottish society would regard the economy, jobs, the fuel tax—[Interruption.]
This is probably a case of the dog that did not bark. What is revealing about Iain Gray is not the questions that he asks but the questions that he is frightened to ask in this Parliament—[Interruption.]
Order.
I know exactly who Steve Cardownie is: he is the person who is carrying the can for the First Minister. I think that the people of Scotland believe that the reputation of their First Minister is a matter of some importance.
Let us consider this affair. It started with a secret loan from the First Minister, now written off. Then, he tried to sell off The Gathering 2009 Ltd, without the knowledge of its own directors, and he failed. Then, he tried to pass liability to the City of Edinburgh Council, but that fix failed too. Councillor Cardownie faces a no-confidence vote; creditors face ruin—103 local businesses; and taxpayers potentially face multimillion pound legal bills. When will the First Minister finally face up to his responsibility for this fiasco?
My responsibility was to try to repair the finances of the individual event and to secure the future of the event for Scotland. That is a governmental responsibility because the event itself generated £10 million for the Scottish economy and £8 million for the city of Edinburgh.
Blithe assertions have been made about a no-confidence motion. As I understand the situation in the City of Edinburgh Council, the motion is a Labour opposition motion of no confidence in the administration of the council—or, perhaps, a Conservative party motion of no confidence, which no doubt the Labour Party will want to support—[Interruption.]
Order.
I hear the surly tones of Lord George Foulkes. I would have been delighted to answer Lord George’s questions at the Public Audit Committee if he had bothered to turn up and ask some. The committee members who turned up asked a range of questions, which I was delighted to answer—[Interruption.]
Order.
What emerged from the committee, I think, was the purpose of the Government to secure the future of the event and the wish of the Government to do everything that it could do to help the position of the creditors.
I regret that the City of Edinburgh Council was not able to follow through with the plan that evolved from the meeting. I regret it because of the effect on individual creditors and because the gathering was a magnificent event, which would have been fitting of the Edinburgh calendar for the future.
Will Iain Gray accept at some point that the people who participated in the meeting and in supporting the gathering—me, Councillor Cardownie, the various other officials who were involved and the politicians who supported the event—did so in a positive way, to secure something of value for the Scottish economy and the city of Edinburgh? I have to say that from start to finish I have seen nothing positive from the Labour Party in its view of the event and only occasional, rather incompetent attempts to seize some little political advantage.
Of course, the reason why Iain Gray did not want to ask about fuel tax—just in case anyone missed this—is that when the rest of the Parliament voted against the rises in fuel tax, he decided to lead the Labour Party into another abstention.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2933)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
On Saturday, in the Parliament building, I and many women from all over Scotland will celebrate international women’s day, which is an occasion that is filled with pleasure and pride.
For some women in Scotland, other occasions, which should be filled with pleasure and pride, can instead be the dark prelude to a night of fear and violence. I am talking about the surge in domestic abuse after high-profile football matches. Strathclyde Police has reported that the old firm clash the weekend before last resulted in nearly double the number of incidents of domestic abuse, compared with the average Sunday. What the effect of last night’s disgraceful scenes will be, I dread to think.
It is regrettably the case that alcohol plays a part in domestic abuse, but that can never be the excuse for such behaviour. Does the First Minister agree that the connection between football and escalating domestic abuse is repugnant, disgraceful and utterly unacceptable?
I agree with that and I thank Annabel Goldie for asking a substantial question about a substantial issue in Scottish society. The Deputy First Minister will attend the event to which she referred.
Annabel Goldie knows the approach of the Administration and, I think, the entire Parliament, to domestic abuse. Funding for the agencies that are actively involved in combating domestic abuse has been doubled. A legal loophole has been closed by the Parliament, through the introduction of an offence to ensure that nobody can escape the consequences on detection of domestic abuse—that was a wise decision by the Parliament. The innovative Caledonian system has been introduced, which is victim centred in forcing people to address, in particular, the violence of men against women and offending behaviour. All those things are being done.
As Annabel Goldie rightly said, drink is never, ever a defence in crimes against people—nor is someone’s team losing a football match. Those things are not a defence and will never be treated as a defence. I think that the Parliament will always unite to combat the evil of domestic abuse in Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for the tenor of his response.
There is a huge moral obligation on football clubs—their management and their players—to set the highest examples of responsible behaviour. If managers and players start behaving like thugs, there is not a shadow of doubt that minority elements among their supporters will also start behaving like thugs. For many women and children, that will translate into the horror and misery of domestic abuse. I need hardly add that disgraceful scenes such as those at last night’s old firm clash merely inflame undercurrents of tension.
Will the First Minister discuss the issues with me and the other party leaders? Does he agree that there is a need for an urgent summit involving the two football clubs involved, the football authorities and the police, so that football encounters can become occasions that are less about fear, violence and disgrace and much more about pleasure and pride for Scotland?
I agree with that and will be happy to discuss those matters with the party leaders.
The chief constable of Strathclyde Police spoke to me this morning and has written to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice asking the Government to convene a round-table discussion involving the old firm clubs and the Scottish Football Association to chart a way forward for old firm encounters. I am happy to confirm that that summit will take place next week and that all parties have agreed to attend.
On how people’s actions have an impact on society, the fans at football matches are representatives of their clubs and the players are role models for society. The management of football clubs also have a particular responsibility. They are people in positions of responsibility and absolutely must behave responsibly. That will happen.
It should be said that Celtic Football Club and Rangers FC have extensive community programmes. They have, in the past, both shown themselves well capable of expressing solidarity with each other and wider society. I was at the funeral of Tommy Burns, where Walter Smith and Ally McCoist carried the coffin. John Reid laid a wreath with the Deputy First Minister at the commemoration of the Ibrox disaster.
However, the disgraceful scenes last night cannot be ignored. The initiative from Strathclyde Police is welcome and I hope that Annabel Goldie agrees. The Government will be happy to convene that summit to chart a way forward and to ensure that all parties, including the Government, the SFA and the clubs, are mindful of their obligations and wider role in Scottish society as a whole.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2934)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has produced a strong report that says that the quangos Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland are not working. The report says that there is clutter and confusion. Scotland’s economy needs to grow, so what is the First Minister’s response to the widespread concerns about that clutter and confusion?
It is to have a growth strategy for the Scottish economy, which we launched in a document last week. That strategy is to reprofile our economy on growth companies and growth sectors in growth markets. That is a sensible, productive growth strategy and it is supported by Scottish Enterprise.
In recent weeks, there have been some spectacular examples of Scottish Enterprise’s impact in its role of fostering and encouraging investment into Scotland. They are examples of growth companies—international companies such as Amazon and local companies such as the new games venture in Dundee—in which Scottish Enterprise has played a substantial role. Given that role of excellence, which, incidentally, has been recognised internationally, we would be foolish not to acknowledge and recognise the work that Scottish Enterprise does.
As far as Skills Development Scotland is concerned, this year almost 100,000 skills places will be agreed throughout Scottish society. Modern apprenticeships alone will be at 25,000, which is 60 per cent higher than the level that we inherited when we came to office four years ago, and Skills Development Scotland will deliver them with a much smaller management team and bureaucracy. The Parliament and its committees should acknowledge Skills Development Scotland’s abilities, which it has demonstrated in the past year.
Our freedom of information requests show that, in the past year, Skills Development Scotland and Scottish Enterprise spent another £4.5 million on public relations consultants and marketing. However, the committee’s report says that people still do not know what Skills Development Scotland is supposed to do, and it does not even seem to have responsibility for the Government’s skills strategy.
Does the First Minister think that the agencies should spend even more money on advertising next year to get their message across, or is it time for different choices? Would not the £4.5 million have been better invested in an exports plan to drive an export-based recovery or in an internship programme with Scottish employers so that young graduates could get their careers started? Would those not be better solutions for Scotland?
I know that Tavish Scott must be aware of the smart exporter plan with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, which is being pioneered by Scottish Enterprise and which has the enthusiastic support of the chambers and involves and galvanises the company sector in exporting effort.
I know that he will also be aware that the Amazon investment, for example, is not just a matter of fulfilling the needs of the United Kingdom market but a platform, particularly for small exporters, to export world wide—a platform that many companies have not had hitherto.
Scotland has done well in international exports, but they have been concentrated in major industries and companies. The smart exporter challenge is to extend that through the company sector in Scottish society.
I just want to caution the Liberal Democrats. I welcome Tavish Scott’s centring on this issue above all at present. However, given that Skills Development Scotland, as the delivery agency for placing skills in Scottish society, will, this coming year, achieve almost 100,000 skilled placements and will have 25,000 modern apprenticeships placed across Scottish society—the first 500 of which I announced last Friday for the energy sector—it seems hardly the time for the Liberal Democrats to advise us to tear it up and abolish it. Surely we should be supporting Skills Development Scotland in the delivery plan to obtain a record amount of apprenticeships and other skills training in the Scottish economy and Scottish society.
Criminal Justice System (Appeals)
4. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has concerns regarding clauses in the Scotland Bill that could result in appeals for Scottish criminal cases moving to the United Kingdom Supreme Court. (S3F-2938)
The Scottish Government has grave concerns. The final criminal court of appeal in the Scottish legal system should be the High Court of Justiciary. That principle, which was confirmed by the House of Lords in 1876, has been undermined by the Scotland Act 1998’s in some cases unwitting approach to devolution issues. The Scotland Bill should be seen as an opportunity to put that right. However, it appears that the UK Government intends instead to force clauses into the Scotland Bill—clauses that are, as yet, unpublished and unseen by the general public, MSPs and MPs—which would in our view further undermine the independence of the Scottish criminal justice system. I am extremely disappointed that, whatever else it did or did not do, the Scotland Bill Committee did not see fit to raise concerns about that.
My question was not the best that I have ever written, because of course these are only proposals. Indeed, they are not in the Scotland Bill yet—they are unpublished, as the First Minister said. Therefore, they will not be consulted on and might yet be foisted on this country. Does the First Minister feel that there is anything that he can do at this stage to ensure the independence of the Scottish criminal justice system?
As Nigel Don will have noted, the constitutional affairs minister has been extremely active on this very subject, trying to ventilate in public what it seems that the Advocate General wants to keep secret.
There is a point of principle here. Let us depart for a second from the issue under discussion—[Interruption.]
Order. Be fairly brief please, First Minister.
—which the Presiding Officer would never let me do unless I was pointing out the underlying principle of a Parliament being able to see a clause in a bill that it is meant to be examining. I do not know whether there is any precedent for this in any Parliament: we are being asked to approve something that the generality of the Parliament, either in Scotland or London, has not even seen.
Of course, the recommendations that will go into the Scotland Bill are based on an expert report from Lord Edward and were, in fact, the subject of a public announcement by the Advocate General for Scotland.
Will the First Minister confirm whether the Scottish Government wishes to be bound by the European convention on human rights? If so, can he tell the chamber why he regards a delay of three or four years to hear a case in Strasbourg before a court that contains no Scottish judges at all as preferable to a speedier resolution by the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which in Scottish cases is led by the two distinguished Scottish judges in that court?
I will try to correct Robert Brown’s misunderstandings. On the first issue, he seems confident of what is in the clauses. I do not know whether Robert Brown has seen the clauses, but I know that the rest of the—
You have seen them.
Yes, I have seen them—[Interruption.]
Order.
That is why, when I raise concerns about them, I might be in a position of more knowledge than Robert Brown, who seems to wish to approve them without seeing them at all. So, when—[Interruption.]
Order. The chamber will come to order.
When the rest of the Scottish Parliament is accorded the same privilege of being allowed to see the clauses, perhaps we can have a parliamentary debate about the concerns of the Scottish Government on whether what is proposed reflects the view of the expert group or, indeed, poses dangers for the independence of the Scottish judicial system.
On the European Court of Human Rights, the issue is whether our jurisdiction has the same rights and abilities as any other jurisdiction in Europe before that court and whether, as we had in the Cadder case, seven judges in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland should have their opinion second-guessed by two judges in the Supreme Court in London. Why on earth should Robert Brown or any other member of the Scottish Parliament not believe that this nation is capable of having its own court of appeal in this country and that this country is capable of answering to a human rights court elsewhere that treats us equally with every other jurisdiction on this continent?
Scottish Sensory Centre
5. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Scottish sensory centre at the University of Edinburgh. (S3F-2941)
Scottish Government officials have regular contact with staff at the Scottish sensory centre and their employers. They last met representatives of the university on 14 December and they are also members of the centre’s advisory committee.
Is the First Minister aware that the Requirements for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005 require teachers of children with a sensory impairment to hold a specialist qualification, the achievement of which is supported by the sensory centre, which is the only centre of its kind in Scotland? By working with those who are involved in the education of young people with a sensory impairment, the centre is promoting innovation, good practice and expert support throughout Scotland. By now, the First Minister should be aware of the widespread concern about the Government’s decision to withdraw funding for the SSC. Is he aware of the impact of his decision to cut funding on the on-going training of specialist teachers who work to ensure the best educational outcomes for a very vulnerable group of children? Does he regret the fact that there has been no consultation, and will he take immediate action to reverse the decision? The centre costs taxpayers £200,000 per annum. I think that funding the centre is the sort of thing that a Government should be doing.
Cathie Craigie will want to put the issue in the context of front-line funding. We will fund Donaldson’s school and the Royal blind school, as grant-aided special schools, with £4.5 million to support children and young people with sensory impairments. We have protected £305,000 of funding for CALL Scotland, which is also based at the University of Edinburgh and provides children with technological solutions to help them to overcome their barriers to learning. This year, we have provided CALL Scotland with an additional £27,000 to enhance its Scottish text-to-speech software. We have also provided £66,000 to update the state-of-the-art national equipment bank, which lends devices to young people to test before local authorities invest in their own equipment. I mention those things because I know that Cathie Craigie will want to put the issue in the context of the support that we are providing.
I would be very happy to convene a meeting between the University of Edinburgh, the Scottish sensory centre and our officials and ministers to discuss the way forward. But let us do that on the basis that, regardless of the £1,300 million cutback in funding, the Scottish Government is anxious—as the figures demonstrate—to support people who are engaged in the activity that we are discussing. On that basis, I will, with good will, convene such a meeting.
Enterprise Network
6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that Scotland’s enterprise network is meeting its economic growth objectives and represents value for public money. (S3F-2943)
Yes, I do. The efforts of the enterprise agencies are benefiting the Scottish economy and helping Scotland out of a recession that was difficult but shorter and shallower than that of the United Kingdom. The most recent labour market statistics also show that, over recent periods, Scotland has been the only nation in the United Kingdom with falling unemployment and rising employment. Members will be glad to know that Scottish Enterprise account-managed businesses increased turnover by £379 million in 2009, and Highlands and Islands Enterprise account-managed businesses are expected to generate an additional £75 million for the economy in the next three years.
The Government’s reforms of the enterprise and skills agencies were meant to declutter the landscape. However, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s inquiry found that, since the reforms, there is a more complex set of governance arrangements and that a lack of clarity and understanding has resulted. That is particularly the case with regard to the delivery of skills.
Does the First Minister agree that, since the reforms, there has been too much focus on strategic forums and working groups and too little focus on ensuring the co-ordinated delivery of services to meet the needs of businesses on the ground?
Iain Smith’s criticisms are a bit unworthy. I notice that the committee recommended no structural change. I also notice that, in the submissions to the committee, there was unity between the Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The CBI said that its members
“on the whole are of the view that the publicly-funded support currently on offer from the enterprise networks is of genuine assistance”
at reasonable cost, and the STUC said that it
“does not share the view that economic development agencies are unnecessary; that economic development should be left to the market and that the funding of economic development should be ‘returned to businesses’ through tax cuts”.
It also says:
“The networks are engaged in much valuable activity which would never have been pursued and/or funded by the private sector alone”.
Among business and the trade unions, there is an assent to the idea that our enterprise network is successfully pursuing a range of activities.
I caution Iain Smith and advise him to reflect on the statistics that I quoted to Tavish Scott. Skills Development Scotland is about to deliver a record level of skills training across Scottish society and 25,000 modern apprentices. This is not the time to go down the road of abolition and structural change. This is the time to get behind our enterprise agencies and Skills Development Scotland to give them the political support that their level of performance merits and deserves.