First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. I welcome the Deputy First Minister to her position.
To ask the Deputy First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01653)
I thank Johann Lamont for her welcome and advise her that I will have engagements today to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The Deputy First Minister and I know Govan shipyard well, and I am sure that she shares the bittersweet feeling about yesterday’s announcement by the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence. There is great sadness for the families of the 840 people who will lose their jobs and for their colleagues in Portsmouth, but there is a degree of relief that shipbuilding on the Clyde has a future. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to secure the future of our shipyards?
I join Johann Lamont in expressing deep regret at yesterday’s announcement. She is absolutely correct that there was mounting speculation that Govan shipyard was under threat of closure, and there is an element of relief that that has turned out not to be the case. However, the loss of 800 jobs across the Clyde and Rosyth is a devastating blow for the shipbuilding industry and the communities that are affected. As she rightly says, we both know the shipyard and those who work in it very well. The Scottish Government’s thoughts are with all those in Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth who are affected by the announcement.
The finance secretary yesterday had discussions with BAE Systems and the unions, and I understand that he briefed Johann Lamont this morning on the content of his discussions with the company. He and I will meet BAE Systems and the unions represented face to face tomorrow morning. Working with the company, the unions and the UK Government, the Scottish Government will do everything that we can to protect as many jobs as possible and to give as much support as we possibly can to those who are affected. Members across the chamber would expect no less of us.
I am sure that we will discuss the longer-term future of the shipyards in greater depth as question time develops. I believe that the Scottish shipbuilding industry does have, should have and must have a strong and secure future. Naval procurement is part of that future, but if we want to build the security and sustainability of our shipbuilding industry we must think beyond naval procurement. I look to Norway, which is similar in size to Scotland and has 42 shipyards that built 100 ships last year. I am not saying that it will be easy but, with political will and the consensus that I hope we can gather across the chamber, all of us should be determined to build that future for our shipyards and those who work in them.
We know that work on aircraft carriers will continue on the Clyde and that 2,500 jobs will be sustained as a result of the order for three ocean-going offshore patrol vessels. Beyond that, it is vital that the Clyde shipyards secure the work to build the type 26 frigates. We know what the Deputy First Minister thinks and hopes will happen. We also know what she would like to happen. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with BAE Systems and the UK Government to secure that work? Can she give my constituents and hers a guarantee that that work will come to the Clyde?
As I said, John Swinney and I will meet the company tomorrow. I care deeply about the shipbuilding industry and its future, as I know Johann Lamont does. I will work with anybody anywhere to secure the future of an industry that is very important to Scotland both practically and emotionally.
Let me also say that my heart goes out to the people of Portsmouth, because I know that their shipbuilding industry is as important to them as the Clyde’s is to us. The problem that we have is that—as we saw yesterday with the further downsizing of our shipbuilding industry—naval procurement alone, however important, is not enough to secure that future not just for 10 years but for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. That is what I want to do.
On the issue whether the type 26 frigates would be built on the Clyde in an independent Scotland, let me deal with that directly by saying two things. First, what we heard yesterday from BAE Systems and from the Secretary of State for Defence is that the Clyde is the best place to build those ships—end of story. Secondly, the UK Government would have nowhere else to build those ships.
I found something quite interesting this morning in a press release on the Royal Navy website that is headed “Britain and Australia to work together to create possible frigates of the future”. The press release starts by saying:
“Among the closer co-operation between the two countries’ military will be seeing whether we can work jointly on ... the Royal Navy’s Type 26 ‘Global Combat Ship’”.
On a visit to the BAE Systems shipyard in Perth, Australia, Philip Hammond said:
“Areas of potential co-operation include future frigates, with the Royal Navy’s Type 26 design ... the first of many opportunities for future collaboration. In times of budget pressures for all nations, it makes sense to maximise economies of scale and work with our friends to get the best value for money on all sides.”
I ask Johann Lamont, in all seriousness, to explain to me in simple terms why it should be okay for the UK Government to collaborate with a country 10,000 miles away but collaboration between two countries that share the same island would not take place. As the constituency MSP for Govan shipyards, Johann Lamont should be getting behind the shipyard to say that it is the best place to build the type 26 frigates regardless of the outcome of next year’s vote.
The fact of the matter is that we already have joint procurement: it is called the United Kingdom. The Deputy First Minister wants to break that up and then reinvent it and pretend that there is not a difficulty. Yes, Govan is the best in the United Kingdom. I want Govan to stay in the United Kingdom so that it can benefit from that position.
I do not doubt the Deputy First Minister’s personal commitment to the individuals within Govan shipyard, but the problem is that her prospectus for Scotland threatens them and their jobs. If I were her, faced with the consequence of that prospectus, I would change the prospectus rather than explain away the concerns of those within the industry who are now highlighting these matters.
The Deputy First Minister has spoken about diversification, but there needs to be a base to work from in order to deliver diversification and there would be consequences while that was happening. Given that naval contracts could dry up within a few short years, what discussions has she had with BAE Systems about diversifying work on the Clyde? Does she have a diversification plan ready to be put in place? Can she tell the workers in my constituency when she anticipates that work on the first non-naval contracts will begin?
With the greatest of respect to Johann Lamont, let me say that John Swinney raised the issue of diversification with BAE Systems yesterday when he spoke to the company. I recall a joint meeting that John Swinney and I had with the trade unions on the Clyde in which diversification was one of the key issues that we discussed. We are not responsible for the running of the shipyards at the moment.
The whole point that I am making is that we need to build an alternative for our shipyards—with naval procurement as a part—and look at what we can do to boost exports and to diversify. The point that I am making, which Johann Lamont does not seem able to rebut in any way, is that there are examples out there of other countries, similar to Scotland, that do that very well.
In the spirit of consensus, I say to Johann Lamont that we would be delighted to work with her and anyone else across the chamber to start to look at that different future for our shipyards.
I also say this—and this point is true regardless of the outcome of next year’s vote. Even with the type 26 order, we are seeing a downsizing of the shipbuilding industry, and in a few years’ time we will be asking ourselves what comes next, because there is nothing in the MOD locker after the type 26 frigates are built. That is a challenge for us all: whether or not Scotland is independent, if we want the future of our shipyards to be secured we must work to find a solution.
On the point about defence jobs in general, Johann Lamont should really look at some of the figures and the evidence. Defence jobs are not being protected in the UK. We are seeing a disproportionate loss in defence jobs and facilities—our shipbuilding industry is being downsized before our very eyes. That is the reality of the UK. The threat to defence jobs in Scotland is not independence but Westminster, and we see that day and daily.
If this was only an argument between the Deputy First Minister and me, that might have been an acceptable answer, but people are worried about their jobs and they deserve better.
John Swinney and his party have been arguing for independence for 30 years. One would have thought that they might have spoken about diversification before yesterday. Even if people agree with the SNP’s position, they know that, in order to move from one place to the other, a bridge is needed to create that security. There is no diversification plan; the SNP’s position is simply a defence against the reality it faces.
That reality is not just faced by us in the chamber: it is much more serious for those who depend on the jobs. This morning, I spoke to the shop stewards convener at Thales. He described the position that the workers are in following yesterday’s announcement as moving from uncertainty to vulnerability. That vulnerability is because the United Kingdom Government has made it clear that defence contracts will not be let outside the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]
Order.
I think that people in the defence industry would prefer to hear what I am about to say rather than catcalling from the SNP back benches.
Let me repeat: the United Kingdom Government has made it clear that defence contracts will not be let outside the United Kingdom and therefore will not come to Scotland if Scotland is outside the United Kingdom, which is what all those in the SNP aspire to.
The reality is that the United Kingdom has not built a warship outside the United Kingdom since the second world war. If the Deputy First Minister is so sure that the contracts would go ahead regardless, can she guarantee the rest of the United Kingdom that an independent Scotland would place orders for warships with English yards? I think that we know the answer to that. [Interruption.]
Order.
Can the Deputy First Minister explain to both her and my constituents who work on the Clyde—irrespective of what she hopes for, aspires to or believes in—what will happen to their jobs should there be a yes vote?
I take no pleasure whatsoever in the statement that I am about to make, but the result for other parts of the UK of the UK Government’s announcement yesterday is that there are no other shipyards in the UK where complex warships can be built. That is a result of the death knell that the UK Government sounded for Portsmouth yesterday. The Clyde is now not only the best place to build such ships but the only place in the UK to build the ships.
On the point about defence contracts not being let outside the UK, let me be the first to tell Johann Lamont—I am amazed that I am the first to do so—that UK defence contracts are already let outside the UK. It is not that long ago that the MOD let a contract for a military vessel to Korea. The MOD also leases military vessels from Norway.
Johann Lamont did not mention my Australian example, but let me say that it is not just Australia that the UK has approached. In 2011, a newspaper in India stated that the
“cash-strapped UK Government has approached New Delhi to jointly design and build”
the type 26 frigates. In the House of Commons in January 2011, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, talking specifically about the type 26, said:
“we are in ... discussion with the Canadians ... Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Turkey”—[Interruption.]
Order.
He continued:
“All those countries have expressed interest in joining the United Kingdom in a collaborative programme that would”
bring
“together ... members of the Commonwealth ... while driving down costs for the Royal Navy.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 31 January 2011; vol 522, c 575.]
Is Johann Lamont’s point that it would be only a future independent Scotland that the UK would not and could not collaborate with?
I understand that Johann Lamont does not support independence—I have got that message. She will campaign hard against independence. I accept that—I even respect it—but this is a question about what happens after Scotland has democratically voted for independence. Surely she will not threaten, bully and seek to blackmail Scottish shipyards. Instead, she should be saying that, in that scenario, the MOD should do the only thing, the right thing and the best thing.
Here is what Jamie Webster, the union convener of the Govan yard—somebody who knows more about the Clyde than the rest of us put together—said:
“If the situation is that Scottish people by democratic vote, vote Yes, I would expect, no sorry, demand, that every single politician of every section supports us”.
My question to Johann Lamont is simple: will she support the Clyde to build the frigates even if we are independent? [Applause.]
Order. Briefly, Ms Lamont.
I will always stand up for the constituents I represent and I will always stand up for the people of Scotland. The Deputy First Minister’s problem is that, once the vote is taken next year, we would have no control or influence over what the UK Government would do because we would not be in it.
The Deputy First Minister highlights all the issues about how we can work with other people. They represent the current benefits of being in a United Kingdom: sharing risk, pooling resource, coming together in tough times and making sure not that we put Govan workers’ jobs at risk but that we protect them in the future.
The fact of the matter is that Johann Lamont is not standing up for the Clyde; she is seeking to bully and blackmail people. Ian Davidson is arguing for the contracts to be taken away if Scotland becomes independent. That is not standing up for the Clyde.
I refer Johann Lamont to the comment that her deputy leader, Anas Sarwar, made on television last night. He said:
“let’s not make it a constitutional issue”.
That memo obviously did not get to Johann Lamont. It sounds as if she is even more out of the loop in her party than we thought.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the Deputy First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01650)
I have no immediate plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I hope to do so before too long.
I add my deep regret about yesterday’s jobs announcement. The speculation surrounding those job losses has been deeply unhelpful and has added to the huge amounts of worry for workers in my area of Glasgow and their families.
On reflection, does the Deputy First Minister regret speculating publicly in the press last week that the entire Govan yard could close, thereby adding immeasurably to the worry of the workers there?
If Ruth Davidson, who is a Glasgow MSP, knew anything about the Govan yard or the people who work in it, she would know the level of anxiety—very real anxiety—that existed in that yard last week about potential closure, because it was a real possibility facing the yard. I no longer represent Govan shipyard—that pleasure and privilege now falls to Johann Lamont—but it will always have a special place in my heart and, no matter whether I am an MSP, no matter whom I represent, I will always do everything in my power to stand up for the fine men and women who work in that fantastic shipyard on the River Clyde.
Nicola Sturgeon and Johann Lamont have both said that yesterday was a “bittersweet” moment for shipbuilding in Scotland. I am pleased that, despite the job losses that were announced yesterday, the Clyde has been reaffirmed as the centre for building United Kingdom warships for the Royal Navy.
In the past 24 hours, I have had a number of conversations with BAE Systems and am pleased that it does not want the Clyde yards to remain static. It will make a multimillion pound investment in those sites to upgrade them massively and bring them into what it calls the upper quartile of worldwide shipbuilding, by creating a design and manufacturing centre of excellence on the Clyde. Simply put, it will elevate the yards to shipbuilding’s premier league.
With all the earlier talk of diversification, the truth is that next-generation complex warships are increasingly built by specialist yards, and not by generalists such as the yards that are making commercial vessels to which the Deputy First Minister referred. Without massive upgrades, the Clyde will not have full capability to build the type 26, and the company cannot compete in the marketplace to supply the most advanced vessels to foreign navies. The yards’ long-term future depends on both.
I know that the company is applying for grants from Scottish Enterprise, and it says that it needs support from the Scottish Government as the yards transform. What work is the Scottish Government doing now to ensure that that assistance will be there when it is needed?
As I said in response to Johann Lamont, we will meet BAE Systems directly tomorrow, and we want to speak to it about support for its investment plans at the yards. Scottish Enterprise already works closely with BAE Systems to provide all sorts of appropriate support for the company and for its presence on the Clyde, and that will continue. I understand that BAE has also received regional selective assistance support in the past.
I say clearly on behalf of the Scottish Government that we will give BAE Systems every support that we can that it needs to carry out that investment in the Clyde in order to help to secure the future of the shipyards. That is what we want, and I believe that it is what everyone in the chamber wants, so let us unite around that and ensure that we do everything in our power to ensure that our shipyards have a secure future—not just for the next 10 years or the slightly longer period that work on the type 26 would secure, but for the next 20, 30, 40 or 50 years and beyond. That is what I want.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the Deputy First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01651)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland will be discussed.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for her expressions of sympathy for the Portsmouth workers, as well as for those in Glasgow, who are losing their jobs. The workers in Portsmouth are also losing their yard. Everyone here is arguing with sincerity about the future of Scottish shipbuilding.
The big problem for the Deputy First Minister is that what she has said to Johann Lamont today is not what she has said in the past about procuring ships. Let us look at what she said about a fisheries protection vessel before she was a minister. She said:
“it should be reclassified as a grey ship in order that the work can simply be given to a Scottish yard.”
The Sturgeon shipbuilding doctrine, powerfully put, was that warships should be built inside the national boundary. She wanted the then Scottish Government to pretend that our fishing patrol ships were warships so that they could be built here, but now she wants the UK Government to do the opposite. Does she see no inconsistency between what she said then and what she is saying now?
I do not know how closely Willie Rennie has looked at the issue. I am not arguing that the type 26 should not have what is called in the technical language the article 346 exemption; I am simply saying that there is nothing in the context of an article 346 exemption that would prevent those frigates from being built in Scottish yards.
The reality that nobody can get away from—which I think we should use as a big advantage for the Clyde, not as something to argue about—is that the Clyde is now not only the best place to build the frigates, but the only place to build them. That is not something that I particularly relish. As I said earlier, I am deeply sorry for Portsmouth following yesterday’s announcement, but it makes the Clyde the only place to build such ships. That is the reality.
In this morning’s edition of The Times, Alex Ashbourne-Walmsley, who is a London-based defence consultant, said that
“Portsmouth on its own simply doesn’t have the capacity to build a ... new class of large, complex warships”.
Portsmouth does not have the capacity, so the only place in the UK that has it is the Clyde, which is something that we should say is good for the Clyde.
I know a little bit about defence, as I sat on the Westminster Defence Select Committee for a number of years. I also represented Rosyth, so I know one or two things about Rosyth.
When Nicola Sturgeon talks about the order being placed in another country, that would open it to competition, which is the whole point about Korea and the Korean yards. That was an open competition, in which the British yards did not even compete. The type 26 frigates are complex warships, whereas the fleet tankers are not. She should know that, and if she does not understand it, she needs to get a bit more advice.
Nicola Sturgeon’s own doctrine says that warships should be built inside the state boundary and, as she said, article 346 makes it clear that that can happen. I remind her that she said that fishing patrol vessels should be reclassified, so that the work could simply go to a Scottish yard, but she expects the UK Government to ignore that doctrine—that is, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Her gamble is that the rest of the UK would do the opposite of what she would do.
I want the relationship between the Royal Navy and the Clyde to continue to deliver jobs and opportunities. Does the Deputy First Minister’s gamble not put that at risk?
Willie Rennie fails—as Johann Lamont and Ruth Davidson failed—to say where else, if not on the Clyde, the ships would be built, but we will leave that to one side. He is just plain wrong on article 346. I will quote to him paragraph 1(b), which says:
“any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary”.
I am not arguing that that provision should not apply. I am saying that, if the UK Government considers it necessary to award a contract to BAE and—for reasons of value for money and because it is the only place to build the ships—BAE says that the ships should be built on the Clyde, nothing in article 346 will prevent that from happening. That is the reality.
What I am about to say to Willie Rennie I say more in sorrow than in anger, because I wish Alistair Carmichael the best in his new post; I had a great relationship with his predecessor. However, Alistair Carmichael’s behaviour yesterday was shameful. He is the Secretary of State for Scotland and his job is to stand up for Scottish interests, but he is quoted this morning in the Portsmouth press as talking about taking jobs away from Scotland. That is disgraceful. I hope that he will amend his approach to the job quickly and I hope that Willie Rennie will never follow what he has done.
I have been indulgent with questions and answers on this very important subject. We now have little time to get through the rest of the questions, so I ask that questions and answers be brief.
Housing (Temporary Accommodation)
4. Unfortunately, this question, which I must read out, is quite long.
To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on Shelter Scotland’s statement that around 5,000 children will be housed in temporary accommodation over Christmas and that the law must be changed to enable families to challenge inadequate temporary accommodation. (S4F-01655)
One child in unsuitable temporary accommodation is one more than any of us wants to see. Since 2008, the number of families with children who are housed in bed and breakfasts has reduced by 85 per cent, but there is clearly more work to do, and we are doing it. Through a stakeholder advisory group, we are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities and bodies such as Shelter. The group will report its findings next month.
Given that the bedroom tax and welfare cuts will undoubtedly exacerbate the position, and given that research by Shelter Scotland has shown that children who are in such temporary accommodation are two to three times more likely to be absent from school because of the disruption, will the Deputy First Minister accelerate her discussions with COSLA and local authorities to ensure that the use of temporary accommodation is very limited? It is damaging to children and has many consequences.
I assure Christine Grahame that that will be done. The group that I spoke about includes COSLA and local authority representatives, and we will work with them to try to prevent the use of B and Bs. There is no doubt that the coalition Government’s welfare cuts agenda is making such matters worse, but we will continue to do all that we can to further alleviate and eradicate the problem.
Higher Education (Zero-hours Contracts)
5. To ask the Deputy First Minister, in light of the recent report by the Educational Institute of Scotland, what action the Scottish Government is taking to address the use of zero-hours contracts in the higher education sector. (S4F-01658)
The EIS campaign is welcome. Universities are autonomous institutions that set their own terms and conditions, but the EIS survey makes for worrying reading.
I was pleased to see that the University of Edinburgh has reached an agreement with the University and College Union to review its use of zero-hours contracts. That shows that the issue can be resolved. The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has also contacted Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland to discuss what support can be provided to share good practice.
Employment law is currently reserved to Westminster but, under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, statutory guidance will be issued to encourage good employment practices, by allowing a company’s approach to workforce-related matters to be considered when its suitability to bid for public sector contracts is assessed.
When will the Deputy First Minister’s Government show the leadership on the issue that Scotland expects? Her ministers continue to defend the use of, and the awarding of Government grants to, multinational companies that use zero-hours contracts.
We now know that at least 8,000 people are working under those contracts in higher education and that a further 1,000 are doing so in further education. Through freedom of information requests, I have discovered that at least 27,000 people are working under zero-hours contracts in the devolved public sector, which is the area for which the Government has entire responsibility. When will the Deputy First Minister show the leadership that we demand and end that invidious employment practice?
I think that I, the First Minster and other Government ministers have made it clear that we deprecate and condemn the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. In my first answer, I read out what progress has been made in the university sector—not enough; we need to do more—and action that the Scottish Government is taking through the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill. If Ken Macintosh or any other member has evidence that they want to share with us, I would very happy to see it, and would welcome receipt of it.
The area is another one in which it is easy to throw brickbats at each other. We all do that—myself included—but let us also try to work together sometimes. We all agree that the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts is unacceptable, so let us agree to work together to try to do something real about it.
University Students (Grants)
6. To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the Student Awards Agency for Scotland’s finding that the level of grants paid to university students from the poorest backgrounds has fallen by 3 per cent. (S4F-01654)
We have put in place a package of measures to guarantee a minimum income of at least £7,250 for all lower-income students. Last month, Mike Russell announced that, from next year, that minimum income guarantee will rise by another £250.
The SAAS figures that were published on 29 October show that, in 2012-13, which was the year before the minimum income guarantee came into force, there was a small drop in the number of students from low-income backgrounds who received one element of student support—the bursary element—but they also showed that, overall, the number of students from low-income backgrounds of below £20,000 who received support was static, at just over 25,000. I must say, of course, that not a single one of those students faces the massive bills of up to £27,000 that are imposed on students by Conservatives south of the border.
Not only are grants to the poorest students in Scotland falling; the participation in higher education in England of those from the most deprived groups is consistently higher than it is in Scotland. In England, that participation is actually on the increase. Will the Deputy First Minister now accept, in light of that incontrovertible evidence on the oft-repeated mantra from her party colleagues, that student or graduate fees are not deterring those from less well-off backgrounds in England from accessing universities, as its record is better than ours?
Any Tory who comes to the chamber and tries to lecture us on access to university education really does have a brass neck, given the tuition fees south of the border.
Look at the evidence.
Order.
Let me give Murdo Fraser two statistics that will perhaps slightly change the picture that he tried to paint. Eighteen-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas in Scotland are 60 per cent more likely to apply to university under this Government. The minimum income guarantee that I spoke about earlier has been described by the National Union Students Scotland—not by any of us—as
“the best support package in the whole of the UK”.
We are doing it the right way in Scotland.
Can we do it better? We can always do things better, but I will never take lessons from Conservatives about how to get more people into university.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You said that a good number of back benchers were interested in putting questions on and debating the position of the shipyards. I was elected to represent Govan 40 years ago today. The trouble then was the shortage of orders after the current ships were in the slips. The problem is therefore old. Many folk know about it, and we could have a constructive debate in the Parliament about where we will go in the future.
Thank you, Ms MacDonald. As I said to you before First Minister’s question time, a number of back benchers wanted to speak. I gave almost 25 minutes to the subject, which reflected its importance. I regret that the back benchers did not get in, but I am sure that, if you want a debate on the matter next week, you will speak to your business manager to raise the issue at the Parliamentary Bureau.