Engagements
To ask the Deputy First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00236)
I begin by paying tribute to Campbell Christie, a true giant of Scottish public life. Campbell’s contribution to Scotland over many years speaks for itself. He was a key campaigner for this Parliament, leader of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, chairman of his beloved Falkirk Football Club, a valued member of Forth Valley NHS Board and latterly, of course, the chair of the Christie commission on public sector reform. His legacy is immense and it will undoubtedly stand the test of time. We will all miss him, and I am sure that the entire chamber will want to send its deepest condolences to his wife Betty and, indeed, to all his family at this very sad time. [Applause.]
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Those were welcome words. I look forward, with many others, to celebrating Campbell’s life at Falkirk football stadium tomorrow.
This week, analysts from Citigroup told global clients not to invest in Scotland because of the Government’s separatist agenda. Is it not now clear that the uncertainty created by a separation referendum will damage this country’s economy?
I looked very closely at Iain Gray as he asked that question, just to see whether he was at all shamefaced. On the very morning that we learn that there is £400 billion-worth of revenue still to be extracted from the North Sea, only Iain Gray could stand up and question Scotland’s ability to be independent.
We disagree with the Citigroup report and think that it is wrong. It is based on two fundamental flaws. First, it ignores the reality, which is that investment is happening now, in the context of a live independence debate: £750 million has been invested in the past 12 months, and Mitsubishi, Doosan and Gamesa have £46 billion-worth of projects in the pipeline. That is the reality.
Secondly, the report makes the erroneous assumption that somehow, post-independence, the rest of the United Kingdom will no longer buy Scottish energy. That is patent nonsense. I know that Iain Gray is not usually one to miss the opportunity to clutch at any passing straw, but today he has excelled himself.
I looked very closely at the news about the potential of Aberdeen. I believe that Aberdeen has that potential, but the report says that it will be realised only if we have a transparent and stable fiscal regime—the very thing that Citigroup says that the Scottish Government is jeopardising.
If the Deputy First Minister will not listen to investors on energy, what about the engineers? In 25 minutes, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers will brief its “Scottish Energy 2020” report in this very building. It will say that the Scottish National Party’s 100 per cent renewables plan
“cannot be justified from an engineering perspective”,
that
“there are currently no credible strategies from a technical point of view, published by Government”,
and that
“without ... far reaching changes in Government policy, the target will not be met.”
I think that Scottish engineers are the best in the world. Does the Deputy First Minister think that she knows better than they do?
To go back to the news from Aberdeen, Iain Gray talks about fiscal arrangements. Has it escaped his notice that the fiscal arrangements that have the capacity to damage our North Sea potential are those from the UK Government? He has ignored that point.
Iain Gray asks who knows best. Does he think that he knows better than Roy MacGregor, the chairman of the Global Energy Group? This is what Roy MacGregor has to say:
“the investment is happening—in full knowledge of the Scottish Government’s planned referendum—and the renewables are being deployed in part thanks to the First Minister who has clearly demonstrated the vision and ambition that investors want to see. Scotland’s ability to produce power is a massive asset and one that is prospering”.
Just for once, Iain Gray could give up the opportunity to come to the chamber and talk Scotland down.
I saw Roy MacGregor’s letter in The Press and Journal. I hope that Roy saw it before it got there. That is a welcome investment by a Scottish company. However, the Deputy First Minister is still answering question 1. Question 2 was about what Scottish engineers are saying about the SNP’s energy policy. They are saying that
“energy policy has to be based on an understanding of energy supply technologies, not political expediency.”
They are trying to be polite, but they are talking about Alex Salmond. Will the Deputy First Minister listen, or will she send poor old Kevin Pringle off to forge a new engineering report in the professors’ names?
Iain Gray is so predictable at First Minister’s question time that I answered question 2 in answer 1. I pointed to the massive renewables investment currently under way in Scotland—£750 million of new renewable electricity projects began generating in Scotland in the past 12 months. There is a pipeline of 17GW of renewable electricity projects—a total estimated capital investment of £46 billion ready to create thousands of new jobs for Scotland. That is the reality.
The stark contrast between Iain Gray and the First Minister will be lost on no one today: the First Minister overseas, fighting Scotland’s corner, winning investment for Scotland; Iain Gray, at home, talking Scotland down as usual.
There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. [Interruption.]
Order.
The report says that there is no credible plan, there is no credible pipeline and there is no route map to achieving the SNP’s renewable energy targets.
The SNP says that renewables is its key policy for Scotland’s future, but it has not got a clue about it. Investors say that the referendum makes the policy unsupportable and that separation makes it unaffordable, but the people who actually build the technology say that it is technically undeliverable. Last week, the First Minister had to apologise for misleading Parliament, but is he misleading Scotland on energy every day of every week?
There is a renewables route map, published by this Government. I suggest that Iain Gray reads it.
The companies are investing—Mitsubishi, Doosan and Gamesa. Iain Gray talks about people not wanting to hear. Let me draw to his attention something that was said at the weekend by Ian Smart, who tried to be a Labour candidate at the most recent election. He said that it is time for Labour to realise
“that it is not that people don’t hear the message. It is that they don’t like what they are hearing.”
It is time that Iain Gray paid attention to that message.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the Deputy First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00215)
Sadly, I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.
This week’s Citigroup report did not talk about oil and gas; it talked about the Scottish National Party’s policy on energy and, in particular, renewable power. It specifically warned that, in an independent Scotland, we would require an annual subsidy of around £4 billion, which would mean an estimated hike of nearly £900 for every Scottish household and £2 billion for Scottish businesses. The Deputy First Minister described the report as wrong and flawed. Can she tell me which bit of the estimates is wrong and flawed? If she cannot, how can she justify placing such an intolerable burden on Scotland?
I am sure that Annabel Goldie will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to replicate the love-in between her and Alex Salmond last week. However, I recognise that this is her last appearance at First Minister’s question time, and I thank her for her contribution and wish her well in the future on behalf of all members. [Applause.]
I disagree with all the conclusions in the Citigroup report. However, it is interesting that the Tories have learned nothing in 15 years. In 1997, John Major said that devolution would frighten off inward investment. Labour said then that he was wrong. It has now adopted the Tory response.
It is a fact that renewables are a success story in Scotland. We are talking about something that we are doing incredibly well, and we have the potential to do even better. Surely even the Opposition parties in the Parliament can find it within themselves to get behind the Government’s ambition.
I referred to the specific point that Annabel Goldie made in my answer to Iain Gray. Peter Jones makes the very point in The Times today that the report is based on the erroneous assumption that, post-independence, the rest of the United Kingdom would not buy Scottish renewable energy. To get anywhere near its obligations, the UK needs Scottish renewables. That is the reality.
The Deputy First Minister may rest assured that I shall not conduct a love-in. However, I thank her for her kind remarks. I have immensely enjoyed being leader of my party in Scotland and, to encourage her, I say, do not give up hope, dear.
I am accustomed to a brazen and blustering First Minister—indeed, there was no surprise that his comment on the Citigroup report was, “So what?”—but I had hoped for a more thoughtful response from the Deputy First Minister. The reality is that, in an independent Scotland in which we generate nearly all our own energy from renewables and are liable for all our own subsidy, someone has to foot the bill. It is interesting to see from the running commentary that is going on how uncomfortable the SNP is with the report. Either households and businesses will fork out much more money than they currently do to pay their bills, or taxes will increase to let the Government pay the subsidy. Why does the Deputy First Minister not simply admit that the best way to maintain secure energy supplies at affordable levels in Scotland is by Scotland staying within the United Kingdom?
On Annabel Goldie’s earlier remarks, I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that I am the only deputy leader in the Parliament who can say that she is perfectly happy with her current leader.
I was not sure whether Annabel Goldie was going to extol the virtues of the union or nuclear power at the end of her question. The Tories are becoming increasingly out of touch on both issues. Let me make things simple for her. The UK Government will need Scottish renewables to get anywhere near the renewable energy obligations that it has to meet. The price that it pays for that Scottish energy, particularly in the post-renewables obligation certificate era, will reflect that. Renewables are a success story for Scotland, and there is potential for enormous growth and great job creation in the area. It is time that all members got behind the renewables revolution in Scotland and stopped talking it down.
Jamie Hepburn has a constituency supplementary question.
Is the Deputy First Minister aware of Allied Bakeries’ decision to consult on the future of the Patak’s factory in Cumbernauld in my constituency? Does she share my concern that the consultation should be genuine and open and should, hopefully, result in a long-term future for that site? However, if worse comes to worst and the company decides to close the factory, what reassurances can she give me that the Scottish Government will be able to step in and help the 108 employees there?
I am aware of the situation and I can understand the member’s concern and the deep concern of his constituents. The news that Patak’s is to end production at its Lanarkshire bakery is extremely disappointing. I reassure Jamie Hepburn that the Scottish Government’s partnership action for continuing employment team has already made contact with the parent company, Allied Bakeries, to see what assistance can be offered to the employees who are affected by the announcement. The Scottish Government stands ready to help in any way that we can.
Cabinet Meeting
To ask the Deputy First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00228)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
More than 1,000 deaths and countless acts of antisocial behaviour in Scotland are as a result of the abuse of cheap alcohol. How concerned is the Deputy First Minister that retailers are openly promoting their online delivery services and other underhand tactics to get round the law that the Scottish Parliament agreed last year to limit multibuy discounts? Will she join me in condemning that behaviour?
I thank Willie Rennie for a very important question. In my view, the quantity discount ban is extremely important. If it stops someone who goes into a supermarket intending to buy only one bottle of wine buying, for example, three bottles of wine, that is a step in the right direction, but make no mistake: the quantity discount ban was intended to operate in conjunction with minimum pricing, and it will be much stronger when it does so.
I welcome Willie Rennie’s comments but, more important, I welcome his and his party’s support now for minimum pricing. I look forward to persuading others in the chamber that that is the right thing to do.
Big business has already tried to undermine the democratic will of the Parliament on the 2010 legislation. As the Deputy First Minister points out, we support the Government’s fresh plans for alcohol minimum pricing, as do the Greens and some others in the Parliament. Some businesses get it as well and support the plans, but others do not understand that they have a social responsibility to the communities in which they operate. Big business has lost the argument on the need for strong action on alcohol, but it now resorts to threats of legal tactics, using its wealth and might. What message does the Deputy First Minister have for big business acting in that destructive way? How will the Government get the message out to big business that it needs to back off?
Willie Rennie is spot on to highlight the fact that significant key players in the alcohol industry now support minimum pricing. I certainly welcome that. Again, just as I look forward to persuading other members in the Parliament on minimum pricing, I look forward to persuading other parts of the industry on it as well.
Obviously, companies will take their own decisions, and it is their right to do so. However, if the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill is passed, I hope that companies and, indeed, others right across Scotland will recognise the clear will of the Parliament and act in a socially responsible manner. There is no doubt in my mind that, although minimum pricing is not a magic bullet that, in and of itself, will solve our problem with alcohol, it is nevertheless an essential part of a comprehensive approach. Right now, it is the missing bit of the jigsaw. I look forward to the day when the Parliament puts that right.
Charities and Voluntary Organisations (Financial Pressures)
To ask the Deputy First Minister how the Scottish Government can alleviate the financial pressures on charities and voluntary organisations. (S4F-00220)
The third sector has a major role in Scotland’s future, especially during a period of economic austerity. Over the next three years, the Scottish Government will provide £73.5 million to the third sector, which compares with funding of £62.1 million over the final three years of the previous Administration. Despite the difficult financial pressures that the Scottish Government faces, that represents a funding increase for the third sector of 18.3 per cent.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for her assurances.
In his report last June, Campbell Christie, who, as has been noted, is sorely missed, highlighted the fact that
“We must prioritise expenditure on public services which prevent negative outcomes from arising.”
Will the Deputy First Minister ensure that women and children with experience of domestic abuse in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross-shire and throughout Scotland get the level of funding for their services that they need from the Scottish Government as a lead partner in their support, and will she urge local authorities to maintain and improve their own contributions and not cut those vital funds?
I agree absolutely with both the detail and the thrust of Rob Gibson’s question. His question touches on the importance of preventative spending, which is something that John Swinney prioritised in his recent budget. It also highlights the importance of the work of the many organisations that are working to combat violence against women. I met some of them this week in the context of our work on violence against women. Rob Gibson will be aware that the equality budget in the draft budget has been maintained, notwithstanding the difficult financial circumstances that we face. I very much hope that, subject to due process, that will allow us to continue the very good financial support we give to organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid to enable them to do their vital work.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that a cut of 5 per cent this year to the core funding of Coatbridge citizens advice bureau will have a huge impact on its ability to sustain its current services? What specific action can she take to ensure that my constituents do not suffer a withdrawal or curtailment of those much-needed CAB services?
I appreciate and recognise Citizens Advice Scotland’s vital work. In a previous life, I used to work not for the organisation but in the advice sector and I know how important that work is.
The legal aid budget for advice services is being protected. Clearly, the financial circumstances in which we live, which are outwith the Parliament’s control, are having an impact in many areas, but we will continue to do what we can to protect front-line services and prioritise spending on preventative measures. As I said in relation to Scottish Women’s Aid, organisations such as CAS have our utmost support and respect.
Respite for Carers
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that respite provision for carers is available across Scotland. (S4F-00237)
First of all, I thank carers across Scotland for their commitment and the support that they provide and I openly recognise that we still have much to do to ensure adequate respite provision for carers in all parts of Scotland. However, we have increased the number of respite weeks by more than 10,000, which will benefit carers. I hope that Jackie Baillie and other members welcome that achievement.
I join the Deputy First Minister in acknowledging the valuable work that carers across Scotland do each and every day. However, does she share my disappointment that more than a third of Scottish councils are cutting respite provision for unpaid carers? Does she really believe that it is right that double-counting of respite care is taking place, with a seven-night stay in a residential home somehow counting as two and a half weeks of care? Finally, does she agree with her own Government’s statistical service, which has acknowledged the double-counting and in effect confirmed that Scotland’s carers have been misled and let down?
I regret the tone of Jackie Baillie’s question, given that I tried to be constructive in my response. This is an area of real importance and I have readily acknowledged that we have more to do.
Jackie Baillie is not strictly accurate in her point about the difficulties of data collection, which we have acknowledged. Although figures are not comparable between councils, that does not affect the changes and the increase in respite weeks over time.
I recognise that we have more to do in this area. The enormous debt of gratitude that we all owe to carers must be expressed in tangible and meaningful ways, which is why this year we are investing £3 million in short breaks and why we have made it clear that 20 per cent of the change fund must go on support for carers. I want to point out the real progress that has been made, but I also recognise that we still have work to do not only to improve provision generally but to ensure that such improvement is consistent across the country. I hope that, on this of all issues, we can unite and get behind the Government’s efforts to see improvements.
Given that the charitable, voluntary and independent sectors can provide high-quality respite care at competitive rates, how will the Deputy First Minister ensure that they are given equal access and consideration in the tendering process for respite care?
I mentioned in my answer to Jackie Baillie the investment of £3 million. Last year, we invested £1 million, which is increasing to £3 million, for the provision of short breaks by the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector’s role in that regard cannot be overstated, as it is vital.
I also mentioned the change fund and the 20 per cent that is set aside within that for support for carers. The involvement of the voluntary sector in the disbursement of that change fund is also vital.
Members have made legitimate points, which I recognise and take on board. We are going in the right direction with respite care and support for carers, but there is still an awful lot for us to do.
Knife Crime
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle knife crime. (S4F-00226)
Every single knife incident is one too many. The latest official statistics show a downward trajectory in the fight against knives, but there will be absolutely no let-up in our efforts. That is why, only this week, following a doubling of funding, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced the roll-out of the very successful no knives, better lives education campaign to six new areas of Scotland.
Does the Scottish Government welcome the publication this week of the Scottish crime and justice survey 2010-11? Is that seen as a further demonstration of the benefit of the 1,000 additional police officers who are working to protect our communities?
I very much welcome the crime and justice survey that was published this week. It shows that overall crime is down significantly and that recorded crime is at a 35-year low. I think that that is related directly to the 1,000 extra police officers who have been put on the streets of Scotland by this justice secretary and this Government. Our commitment to keeping those officers there will help us to drive down crime even further.
I was disturbed to read in that survey about the link between crime—particularly violent crime—and alcohol, which simply strengthens my resolve to take tough action in solving and addressing our problem with alcohol misuse.
I welcome the roll-out of no knives, better lives to South Lanarkshire. However, does the Deputy First Minister agree that the Scottish Government should instigate an urgent review of bail procedures, particularly bearing in mind that the killer of Reamonn Gormley was out on bail despite a string of previous offences? That has caused great bitterness and anger among many of my constituents.
I understand James Kelly’s question and his reasons for asking it. It is impossible to imagine the grief and distress that the family of Reamonn Gormley is suffering, and the condolences of all members in the chamber go out to them. Bail procedures are a matter for courts. However, it is worth pointing out that the average length of custodial sentences for carrying an offensive weapon has increased from 118 days in 2005-06 to 274 days in 2009-10. That is the highest level for a decade.
As I said in the first sentence of my first answer, one knife crime that leads to the type of tragedy that James Kelly mentioned is one too many. While those crimes continue to happen we should never let up. However, we are seeing progress thanks to the measures that the justice secretary has taken, and we will continue to do everything possible to drive knife crime down even further.
The local roll-out of the no knives, better lives campaign in South Lanarkshire has been welcomed by people in my constituency and throughout the region, where communities have been shocked by high-profile knife murders in recent months. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it is preventative action such as that campaign, and not mandatory sentences, that will tackle the problem of knife crime at its roots by changing the culture on our streets?
As I have already said, the length of sentences is increasing, which is appropriate given the serious problem of knife crime. I agree with Christina McKelvie that the strength of the no knives, better lives campaign is that it is evidence based and has been proven to work. We should be rolling out things that have been proven to work, which is why the justice secretary’s announcement this week is so welcome, and why I hope that every member in the chamber will unite behind the measure so that we can continue to see knife crime in this country fall.
12:30 Meeting suspended.