Rolls-Royce Submarines (Scottish Enterprise Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason Scottish Enterprise has reportedly refused funding to Rolls-Royce Submarines, resulting in the potential loss of jobs. (S6T-02556)
The Scottish Government’s long-standing policy is that neither the Government nor its agencies should use public money to support the manufacture of munitions. On that basis, Scottish Enterprise considered that the specific project that it has been discussing with the Malin Group for work on an attack submarine was unfortunately ineligible for potential funding. Scottish Enterprise did not receive a formal application for funding from Malin.
The Scottish Government’s position is, frankly, incoherent. Its policy on state-funded aid for defence is all over the place and applied selectively. I will give one example. The Scottish Government owns and funds work at the Ferguson Marine shipyard. Ferguson Marine is doing subcontract work for BAE Systems on the Royal Navy’s type 26 frigate programme. There will be munitions on the frigates. Why is that acceptable but funding Rolls-Royce in partnership with the Malin Group to establish a welding school is not? Is the Scottish National Party putting its interests before the interests of jobs and the economy and the best interests of Scotland?
It is important to reiterate that the Scottish Government values the role of the defence sector in Scotland, the many jobs that it sustains and the value that it adds to the Scottish economy. For that reason, since we came to office, £45 million-worth of support has been allocated through our enterprise agencies to defence companies or companies that are partially involved in defence activities. We continue to value the important role that the defence sector plays.
I am afraid that the minister has not explained the inconsistency. The Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands went on television on Sunday to declare that the SNP believes that the military is very important. However, the Government essentially does not believe that the military should have weapons. What does the Government believe that the Army, the navy and the air force should defend the country with? Peashooters? Bows and arrows? A telling-off? Will the Government reconsider its position, or does the United Kingdom Labour Government need to step in because the SNP will not step up? Is the SNP simply not serious about the security of the country, and is it also prepared to damage jobs and manufacturing in Scotland?
I have a lot of respect for Jackie Baillie, and that is not the line of argument that I would have expected her to pursue on this very important issue. In the world at this time, the Scottish Government values the role of our defence forces. However, on the use of public money in Scotland by our enterprise agencies, and when it comes to working with the defence sector or companies that are partially or wholly involved in defence activities, we put the emphasis on diversification and skills development. That is why, as I explained, £45 million-worth of support has been allocated to defence companies through our enterprise agencies since we came to office.
The SNP has long taken a principled position that taxpayers’ money will not directly fund arms positions but will instead support the diversification of industry away from core defence activities. Will the minister say more about how the Scottish Government engages with industries across the country, including with the defence sector, as part of its work on skills reform? What will the £2 million that was announced in the programme for government to develop engineering skills in the Glasgow city region support?
Bill Kidd highlights many important areas in which the Scottish Government works with the defence sector in Scotland to provide high-value jobs. As I mentioned, it adds £3.2 billion to the Scottish economy and deploys 1,500 apprentices each year. I hope that that number will continue to be sustained in the years to come, given the way that things are going in the world at the moment.
We work very closely with the trade association that represents the defence sector in Scotland, ADS Scotland, and we have regular engagement with defence companies. I note that the Deputy First Minister last year visited the Malin Group’s Scottish marine technology park at Clydebank, and we continue that good engagement with the defence sector.
The Scottish Government’s position on the matter is not just incoherent; it is grossly hypocritical. It is totally hypocritical. The minister is standing up and going on about how the Scottish Government will support the defence industry sector, but the Government is undermining the sector; it is undermining high-value, high-skilled jobs for young people; and it is undermining Scotland’s contribution to the UK national defence.
Ministers cannot claim to have been caught off guard by the issue. In responding to me in a letter dated 1 April—I hope that there is no significance in the date, by the way, but I am beginning to think that there is—the First Minister stated that there would be a review of Scottish Enterprise policy to ensure continued support for Scotland’s defence sectors
“in an increasingly uncertain world.”
Minister, did that review take place? If so, what was the outcome? Given the Government’s actions since, how can anyone take any assurance from the promise that the First Minister gave me?
I am pleased that the member mentioned the review of Scottish Enterprise that was agreed to by the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, the Parliament voted for the amendment to the motion from the Labour Party that said that we should review the due diligence that Scottish Enterprise carries out of money that is awarded to companies that are involved in defence and arms activities.
Due diligence is a serious issue that all parties—perhaps not the Conservatives, but certainly other parties—have shown a very careful and intense interest in.
We have a long-standing principle that any public money that our enterprise agencies use to support companies that are wholly or partially involved in defence activities focuses on skills development and diversification. It is complete nonsense for the member to say that the Scottish Government is not supporting skills development in the defence sector in Scotland.
I call Patrick Harvie.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
What about my question?
Will other members permit anyone else to speak? Yes? [Interruption.]
I am someone who would like to see stronger ethical constraints placed on public funding for the arms trade, not weaker ones. Does the minister share my dismay at hearing the defence secretary use what was, frankly, insulting and demeaning language to describe the application of any ethical constraints at all, such as those that the Scottish Government applies currently? Is it not all the more galling when those comments come from a Government that is willing to see arms provided to a genocidal regime such as Israel?
The member raises the importance of all Governments throughout the world, including the Scottish Government in the context of Scottish devolution, taking into account ethical considerations when it comes to the funding of companies that are partially or wholly involved in defence activities. We urge the UK Government to take a similar approach.
What is the plan for munitions in an independent Scotland? Where will we buy them from? Will we make them ourselves? If it is not the taxpayer, who will fund them? Those are serious questions that highlight the inconsistency in the SNP’s approach. Would an independent Scotland have any munitions at all?
Of course an independent Scotland would have conventional defence forces. Defence and defence spending are reserved to the UK Government. The member should be aware of that.
In the context of our principles, we believe that any public money that is used to support companies in the private sector that are involved wholly or partially in defence activities should focus on diversification and skills development; it should not be used to fund munitions.
The minister will be aware that the Scottish Government, through Scottish Enterprise, recently grant funded BAE Systems’ applied shipbuilding skills academy in Scotstoun to the tune of half a million pounds. That project is similar to the marine welding project run by Rolls-Royce and the University of Strathclyde, and I do not see how the latter can be assessed any differently.
In that spirit, will the minister undertake to conduct discussions with the UK Government, and with Rolls-Royce Submarines and the University of Strathclyde directly, to get this investment back on track? I have been told directly by the investors that this decision is sending a toxic signal about investment in advanced manufacturing in the Glasgow area.
As I said previously, the Scottish Government has allocated £45 million of public support through enterprise agencies to the defence sector in Scotland since we came to office. That is an illustration of the value that we attach to that very important sector.
The Scottish Government’s long-standing principle that we should not fund the manufacturing of munitions has been in place for a number of years, so Scottish Enterprise and other enterprise companies have to look at each application on its merits. In this case, Scottish Enterprise took the decision that the application does not align with Scottish Government policy, as I have outlined.
That concludes topical questions.
Previous
Point of OrderNext
Point of Order