Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03097)
Later today, I will have discussions to take forward our plans to host, at the invitation of the United Nations, an initiative to prepare Syrian women for peace building.
On that note, I am sure that we are all mindful that British service personnel, many of whom are based at Lossiemouth, are now in action over Syria. Notwithstanding my opposition to that action, my thoughts and good wishes are very much with them at this time. However, I remain deeply troubled by the United Kingdom Government’s decision to take the country into conflict with no strategy or exit plan and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Scotland’s MPs. [Applause.]
Like the First Minister, I did not support the extension of air strikes into Syria. However, with British forces now involved, we must come together to support the brave men and women in our armed forces. I am sure that the First Minister will join me in extending the Parliament’s support to them.
There is another issue of global significance in the newspapers this week: climate change. This week, the First Minister announced that she will attend the climate summit in Paris. I am sure that, like me, she looked at David Cameron’s appearance there with a mixture of bemusement and anger. The Prime Minister told delegates that the earth is in peril and that there will be no excuses for this generation of politicians not acting. This is the Prime Minister who undermined the renewables industry by slashing subsidies and who has promoted fracking. Just last week, the Tory Government broke a manifesto promise by cancelling its £1 billion carbon capture and storage competition. Does the First Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s posturing in Paris was sheer hypocrisy?
Here is something that we do not hear too often in the chamber: yes, I agree with that, 100 per cent. As world leaders meet in Paris over the course of this week and next week, hoping to come to an agreement that will help the world to better tackle climate change, it is incumbent on all of us, including the Scottish Government, to make sure that our policies and practices, including what we do ourselves at home, are commensurate with the rhetoric that we use about climate change.
I will be proud to represent Scotland on Monday in Paris, where I will take the message from Scotland about what we are doing and use that, I hope, as a motivation and spur for others to follow suit. I absolutely deplore the UK Government decisions that are undermining our efforts to increase generation from renewable energy. Last week in the chamber, I commented on the decision to cancel the carbon capture and storage competition, which, as well as damaging our efforts to reduce emissions and tackle climate change, is deeply damaging our reputation among the business community. Two FTSE 100 companies entered that competition in good faith, devoting time, effort and resource to it, and it is nothing short of a disgrace that it has been cancelled at the last minute.
I am glad that the First Minister agrees with me. I her own words, she is going to Paris to show that
“Our world-leading targets set the benchmark the international community needs to match”.
This Parliament set those targets unanimously in 2009. When the First Minister tells the international community that she has the most ambitious targets in the world, will she remember to tell them that she has not hit those targets once?
I encourage Kezia Dugdale to study in detail all the facts and information on the subject, because that is important. I hope that we can continue to come together as one on this important global issue.
When we set the target for 2013 back in 2010, the reduction in carbon emissions that we anticipated having to achieve was 31.7 per cent. In fact, we have achieved a 38.4 per cent reduction from the 1990 baseline. We have only not met the target because of the increases to that baseline. Fixed annual targets were missed because of improvements to how the data is calculated, which added 10.6 megatons to the 1990 baseline. That is equivalent to almost all the emissions in 2013 from waste management, public sector buildings and the residential sector. Therefore, we have exceeded the reduction that we had anticipated but, because of the increase in the baseline, we have not met the target. I would have thought—[Interruption.]
Order.
I am sharing factual information with the chamber. The Opposition—[Interruption.]
Order.
If we are serious about the rhetoric that is used—and the very welcome rhetoric that Kezia Dugdale has just used—we should do two things. We should celebrate the progress that we are making in Scotland and use that to encourage others to make similar progress; we should also not rest on our laurels, but be determined to continue to make progress.
It might be appropriate to end with a quote from Professor Jim Skea, a member of the UK Committee on Climate Change. Back in the summer, he said:
“If you divide where Scotland is now versus where it was in 1990 it is actually among the world leaders. That is unambiguous.”
There was more spin in that answer than your average wind turbine. The fact is that the First Minister’s Government has never hit a climate change target, and on Monday we saw one reason why. The report on public sector climate change duties was published and, yet again, the Scottish Government has missed its own target to cut emissions from its activities. It is no wonder—the report shows that the Government’s use of vehicles, taxis and private cars have all increased in the past year. If our own Government cannot hit its targets, how can the First Minister lecture the rest of the world on their duty to do the same?
I really think that Labour should raise its game if it wants to raise issues of such global import. [Interruption.]
Order.
I have just narrated factual information to the chamber about Scotland’s performance—performance that is being praised by the UK Committee on Climate Change and people such as Desmond Tutu. Indeed, the head of the United Nations climate change body said in a letter to the environment minister in August this year that
“Scotland’s ambition to create a strong and healthy renewables sector and a low carbon economy is a shining example of measures that can be taken to diversify energy supplies, attain energy security and attract investments.”
When people across the world are saying that about Scotland, why is it that only Scottish Labour is still trying to talk down the achievements of our country? [Interruption.]
Order.
I will go to Paris on behalf of the people of this country and I will encourage others to follow the lead that is recognised as being set by Scotland. Here at home, I will also make sure that we continue to challenge ourselves.
The progress that I have outlined to the chamber shows that we have exceeded the figure for the reduction in emissions that we set back in 2010 but, because we know that the world—and not just Scotland—needs to go further, we will continue to raise our sights and ambitions for Scotland. It is doing that that characterises this Government, and it puts us in stark contrast to the Opposition.
Let us see whether the First Minister is raising her game on climate change. She is about to get control over air passenger duty, which is a key environmental tax. What is her plan for that green tax? She wants to abolish it. The Government’s figures show that abolishing APD will increase emissions by 50,000 tonnes a year. To put that into context, the First Minister could fly to Paris and back every day for 200 years and do less damage to the environment.
The First Minister heads to Paris next week. She is the head of a Government that has missed its own targets for four years in a row, is unable to control its own emissions and plans to abolish environmental taxes. When it comes to hypocrisy on climate change, is the First Minister not giving the Prime Minister a run for his money?
First, I will not be flying to Paris on Sunday; I will be taking the train. [Interruption.]
First Minister.
Secondly, Kezia Dugdale’s arguments on APD as it relates to the environment might have more force if the revenue from the tax was hypothecated to spending on reducing emissions. It is not; APD is simply a revenue-raising measure for the UK Government.
Last night, some of us were at the annual dinner of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and spoke to a wide range of businesspeople who are focused on trying to internationalise the Scottish economy—that is, to grow its export base. I expect that there was considerable consensus that reducing APD is an important measure for creating jobs, improving our transport links and helping our business community to grow its exports.
We will continue to ensure that we pursue policies that help to promote equality, social justice and our environment and to ensure that we have a vibrant, growing economy. That kind of balanced approach to governing the country means that the Scottish National Party is standing here and Labour is sitting over there.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I add my gratitude to the brave service personnel who will be involved in the necessary military action in Syria. As too often before, their selfless efforts abroad help to keep us living safely at home.
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-03092)
I have no plans in the near future.
The Scottish National Party’s policy of free university education is failing poorer students. A new report by Universities UK, published today, shows that poorer young people in Scotland are only half as likely to go to university as those from the rest of the United Kingdom and that the gap is getting wider.
Five weeks ago, I raised that issue with the First Minister and I suggested that a graduate contribution could help to restore bursary funding that the SNP Government has gutted. Those bursaries support poor students who otherwise could not get a foot in the door. When the SNP Government came to office, bursary support stood at £104 million per year. Will the First Minister tell me what the figure will be next year?
We will continue to ensure that we have a funding support package that supports our students, particularly those from the poorest backgrounds, to go to college and university.
I cannot believe that Ruth Davidson has come to the chamber and raised bursaries with this Government. Does she not remember that George Osborne of the Conservative Party—which, the last time that I looked, was the party Ruth Davidson is a member of—stood up in the House of Commons last week to deliver his autumn spending statement and announced that the UK Government would abolish all bursary support for students from April next year? It will not reduce that support or take it back a little bit but abolish it completely, and it will do that for student nurses as well as students in general. Therefore, I will take no lectures from the Conservative Party or Ruth Davidson when it comes to student support.
As I did with Kezia Dugdale, I will give Ruth Davidson a few facts that might get in the way of her rhetoric but that she would do well to listen to. The number of people from our most deprived communities who achieve a university qualification has increased under this Government by 24 per cent. The number of 18-year-olds from our most deprived areas who apply to university is up by 50 per cent. Young people from our most deprived areas are now more likely to participate in higher education by the age of 30 than they were in 2006. Although the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures have to be treated with caution because they underestimate Scotland’s performance, they nevertheless show that Scotland is reducing the attainment gap at university faster than any other part of the UK.
Those are the facts, and it will certainly not help us to make us any further progress if we go down the road of the Tories by taking away bursaries from all students.
I asked for a number; it was a number that the First Minister did not want to give. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Davidson.
The First Minister did not want to give the number five weeks ago either, so after that session we put in a freedom of information request to the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, which tells us that bursary funding will be around £60 million in 2016. That is a drop of £40 million under this Government.
The Scottish National Party says that its no-tuition-fee policy is designed to help poorer students to gain access to higher education. This week, a report by experts at the University of Edinburgh said:
“Despite political rhetoric surrounding free higher education in Scotland, the system has failed to produce more egalitarian outcomes compared with the rest of the UK.”
It added that the Scottish Government’s policies were “reproducing existing social inequalities”. The SNP has slashed college places and cut bursaries, and the policy that is supposed to counter all of that does not work.
I know that the First Minister will want to dismiss me, as she has done before, but those experts are telling her that a contribution after graduation can be used to help poorer students into university in the first place. Will she dismiss them too?
I am not going to dismiss Ruth Davidson, but I am going to criticise—as, I believe, will people across the country—her shame-faced hypocrisy on this issue. The reality is that whatever the SNP Government is spending on student bursaries is going to be more than the zero that the Conservatives are going to be spending on student bursaries when they scrap them for all students next year.
We will continue to make sure that we give our students a decent funding package. Average support for students in Scotland is now the highest that it has ever been—at £5,610 per student, it is up nearly 5 per cent on the previous year. We remain committed to bursaries for the poorest students, unlike the Conservatives, who are scrapping them from next year.
Our minimum income guarantee for undergraduate students from the poorest households who are living at home is the highest package of support anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is the reality, and it is partly why we are starting to make the progress that I cited in my earlier answer in increasing the number of people from our deprived communities who go to university. We will continue to do that work while protecting a principle that I hold dear: the principle of free access to education based on ability to learn, not ability to pay.
I will end by quoting what the National Union of Students had to say about the report that Ruth Davidson cites:
“The idea that abolishing free education—a clear recognition of the public and social good provided by higher education—would improve fair access seems bizarre.”
It is bizarre. The NUS is right and the Tories—not for the first time—are downright wrong.
David Torrance has a constituency question.
The First Minister will be aware that the structural safety checks on the Forth road bridge are causing major disruption to commuters from my constituency. What discussions have there been with Transport Scotland and ScotRail to mitigate the disruption?
The Transport Scotland resilience room has been operational since the defect on the southbound carriageway was identified. Officials are working with our roads operator, Amey, to identify the problem, and traffic management measures are now in place.
The decision to close the southbound carriageway was not taken lightly, because we understood the disruption to commuters that it would cause, but it was taken for the right reasons—for safety reasons. Measures to reopen it, or reopen it partially, will be taken as soon as it is safe to do so. I hope that the chamber welcomes that assurance.
Finally, I take the opportunity to thank the travelling public for the patience that they are showing at this time.
Climate Change Mitigation
To ask the First Minister what part Scotland can play in the international mitigation of climate change. (S4F-03099)
Scotland is supporting international efforts to secure an ambitious and legally binding climate treaty at the United Nations conference. Both I and the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will be in Paris over the next few days to promote the action that Scotland is taking, which has been praised as “a shining example” by the head of the UN climate body.
Scotland is now three quarters of the way to achieving our world-leading emissions reduction target. We are already meeting half of our electricity demand from renewables, we have delivered on our target for community and local renewables five years early and we have met our energy consumption target seven years early. We are also benefiting from 45,000 low-carbon and environmental services jobs.
Scotland offers both a message and a model for climate action that we will be proud to promote at the vital Paris talks.
This week, The Herald stated:
“the record of the UK government record is particularly shameful ... with retrograde measures such as the ending of subsidies for onshore wind.”
Does the First Minister agree that climate justice must start at home, and that it must be a rallying point to ensure that all parties and all sections of the public act quickly to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions and that—vitally for climate justice—we give home insulation and onshore wind power development top priority?
Yes, I agree with that. At home, it is important that all of us take continued action if we are to achieve our emissions reductions. That is why we have designated improving energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority.
As I said, Scotland has made significant progress in renewable electricity, with around half of our gross electricity consumption now coming from renewables. Of course, we share the renewables sector’s concerns that the damaging and premature cuts in support for renewable energy that are being driven through by the UK Government will hamper progress.
When we talk about climate justice, it is important to concentrate not only on what we do at home, but on the contribution that we can make to climate justice around the world. I am proud that Scotland is showing the way by putting people and human rights at the heart of our action on climate change. We have supported through our climate justice fund 11 projects in Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia, which help some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, particularly women and children, to adapt to the impact of climate change.
At home and overseas, Scotland should be proud of its record and should use that record as a way of encouraging others to do more as well.
Defence Review
To ask the First Minister what the impact on Scotland will be of the recent defence review. (S4F-03105)
Scotland has been disproportionately hit by previous strategic defence reviews, which has resulted in the closure of bases and the creation of major capability gaps.
I wrote to the Prime Minister this week seeking assurances for Scotland on the latest review. Although we welcome plans to locate nine maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth, we are mindful that some previous commitments have never materialised. The review creates new uncertainties for shipbuilders on the Clyde, with only eight of the 13 type 26 frigate orders that were promised having been confirmed.
Overall, the review does little to reverse the disproportionate decline in Scotland’s defence footprint over more than a decade, and most indefensibly it proposes wasting an estimated £167 billion on Trident at a time when people are being so hard hit by the Treasury’s damaging austerity cuts.
I gather from that response that the First Minister already shares my concerns about the balance in what the UK Government is up to. Does she feel that there is any prospect at all that the UK Government might rebalance to conventional forces, which might actually protect us, rather than preserving the sacred cow called Trident?
Of course, in this chamber, Trident is now supported only by the Conservatives and Jackie Baillie—an unholy alliance if ever we saw one. [Interruption.]
Order.
I share the concerns that have been expressed. It is important that we have a balanced defence. The national security strategy that accompanied the defence review set out a range of threats, all of which we should take very seriously, but to not one of those threats is Trident a sensible answer.
I agree that, instead of investing in Trident, we should be encouraging the UK Government to ensure that we have in place the right conventional forces, commensurate with the risks that we face as a country.
I am glad that the First Minister acknowledges that the long-term future of the Lossiemouth air base is being secured as a consequence of the strategic defence and security review.
Given her opening remarks this morning, does she welcome the fact that the review underlines the UK Government’s commitment to spend 2 per cent of gross domestic product on defence, thereby meeting our NATO commitments and ensuring that British forces remain some of the best equipped in the world?
We have seen disproportionate cuts to our conventional defences in Scotland. While I welcome anything that secures the future of Lossiemouth, it is important to point out that the only reason why there has been any threat to, or question mark over, Lossiemouth is decisions that have been taken or proposed by the UK Government.
This day is a timely reminder that we face a range of threats, which is why it is right that we continue to argue for conventional defence forces with the right capabilities, and continue to oppose spending so much money on nuclear weapons that do not provide a defence against any of the threats that we face as a country.
Tata Steel Plants
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has requested an extension of the 45-day consultation period for the Tata Steel plants at Dalzell and Clydebridge. (S4F-03096)
We have discussed the length of the consultation period with both Tata Steel and workforce representatives. Although the minimum statutory period is due to end tomorrow, consultation between Tata and the trade unions is on-going. That is primarily a matter for the company and the unions.
The focus of our activity remains very firmly on securing an alternative commercial operator for Dalzell and Clydebridge. As a member of the task force, Mr Pentland will know that Tata Steel has confirmed that there are currently serious parties potentially interested in the plants. That is encouraging, and we continue to do everything that we can to assist that process.
As I have said previously and as, I am sure, everybody in the chamber recognises, there are no quick fixes here. There are certainly no easy fixes. However, together with the workforce, the unions and others, we are working tirelessly and will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to keep the plants open.
Clearly, workers are very stressed and worried about their future. Does the First Minister agree that we have the potential to create a centre of excellence for steel making in Scotland? Can she reassure me that, in the quest to leave no stone unturned, the Scottish Government is prepared to provide support for any transitional period leading either to a buyer taking over the plants or the public ownership that may be necessary to save the jobs at Dalzell and Clydebridge, which I trust the Scottish Government values as highly as those at Prestwick?
The member knows how highly we value jobs in the steel industry and the continuation of that industry in Scotland. I very much agree that there is a real opportunity here to create a centre of excellence in the steel industry in Scotland. When I say that we will leave no stone unturned, I mean exactly that. If there is any viable option that will secure the future of the plants, the Government will explore taking that forward. As Mr Pentland will be aware, there have been suggestions at the task force about support that could be provided in a transitional period. The Scottish Government is exploring all those options.
I repeat what I said in my initial answer. Right now, serious parties are expressing potential interest in the plants. It is therefore appropriate and right that we concentrate on doing everything that we can to see one of those expressions of interest turn into something real and viable. At the moment, that is where the Scottish Government will continue to expend its energy.
Is the First Minister able to give an update on the work that is being done possibly to reduce fuel and business rate costs at the Tata plants in Motherwell and Cambuslang?
We have been working very intensively to create the best business environment for any new operator that might be prepared to take on the sites. As a result of work that was commissioned by the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, we now know that energy costs at the sites could be cut significantly and that there is potential for renewable electricity generation and sale of heat from the plants. We continue to maintain pressure on the European Commission to accelerate state aid clearance for the energy-intensive industries compensation package and to do so before Christmas.
We have agreed with the Lanarkshire assessor that he will take into account the state of the steel industry in the next business rates revaluation. We are open to options for reducing the rates liability as long as those options comply with state aid rules.
As well as doing everything that we can to secure a commercial operator for the plants, we will continue to do everything that we can to reduce the running costs, which will make the plants even more attractive to any commercial operator.
Healthcare Inequalities
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to reduce healthcare inequalities. (S4F-03107)
There has been a general improvement in many health outcomes in recent years, for example a reduction in premature mortality among under-75s. We have a range of public health policies on, for example, tobacco, alcohol and diet to improve health and close the equality gap.
One of the ways in which the Scottish Government is tackling health inequalities is by reforming the general practitioner contract, to reduce bureaucracy and give GPs more time to devote to the complex problems that patients can face, particularly in areas where patients face the greatest inequalities and health issues. Further changes will be made to the 2017 contract, which will include a review of the Scottish resource allocation formula, to ensure that GP surgeries in the areas of most need receive funding that is proportionate to the needs in their areas.
The First Minister mentioned GP funding. She will be aware that earlier this week a report from Professor Graham Watt, of the University of Glasgow, highlighted that GPs in the most deprived areas of the country receive £10 less per patient than GPs in wealthier areas receive. Professor Watt said that
“We have got health inequalities which are the worst of any country in Western Europe”,
and he went on to say that GP funding is one of the reasons behind that. In my region, every GP practice in Kirkcaldy is operating with a full list and cannot take on any new patients. What more can the Scottish Government do to combat inequalities?
I welcome Professor Watt’s findings, which we will take fully into account in delivering a new GP contract for 2017 and the accompanying revised allocation formula. It is interesting that Professor Watt’s study examined data from 2011-12. I have looked at the recent data for GP payments, for 2014-15, which show that the most deprived practices received, on average, £7.65 more per patient than practices in the most affluent areas received. I hope that that is a sign of progress in the direction that I suspect that Murdo Fraser wants us to take.
The resource allocation formula has been in place since 2004 and has undergone some revisions and changes since then. The new GP contract, on which we are in the early stages of negotiation and which will take effect in 2017, gives us a good opportunity to revise the allocation formula to ensure that it reflects the varying needs of GP practices in different local communities. I look forward to having the support of the Parliament as we seek to do that.
Does the First Minister agree that, over and above fundamental action to create a more equal society, it is necessary to support targeted action for the most vulnerable individuals and the most disadvantaged communities? I am thinking of initiatives such as the Royal College of Nursing’s innovative nursing at the edge initiative, which will be featured at a meeting of the cross-party group on mental health in committee room 2 in five minutes’ time. [Laughter.]
After that advert, we will hear from the First Minister.
I had better not take too long to answer the question, or I will make Malcolm Chisholm late for his meeting. I agree with him and I send my best wishes to the RCN in the meeting; I support the work to which Malcolm Chisholm referred.
In general terms, I agree with the point that Malcolm Chisholm made and I refer him to the support that we show for the deep-end GP practices, which are very much about recognising the particular needs in our most deprived communities. As well as raising the health outcomes of our country generally, we must ensure that we are taking the action that will close the gap.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Sex Offenders