First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of this international women’s day. (S4F-00528)
With your permission, Presiding Officer, I want to say a few words about Paul McBride, who tragically died last weekend. Paul was an outstanding advocate and a substantial public figure in Scotland. His reservoir of talent was great indeed, and I believe that he had a great deal more to contribute both to the law and to the great debate on Scotland’s future. He will be sorely missed and I am sure that the whole chamber will wish to convey our condolences as a Parliament to Paul’s partner, Gary, his parents and his many friends and colleagues.
As has been said, today is international women’s day. It is a day when the world celebrates the achievements and contributions of women past and present. I want to acknowledge women’s tremendous contribution to Scottish society, so this is a fitting opportunity to announce that the Scottish Government has committed to fund the Scottish resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology at Edinburgh Napier University. Because funding for the United Kingdom parent body had been removed by Westminster, the facility was facing closure, but we have acted to ensure that the centre, which supports the success of women in fields of endeavour in which they are significantly underrepresented, remains open to continue its vital work. [Applause.]
On behalf of Labour members, I support the First Minister’s comments about Paul McBride and express our sympathy with regard to the very sad and tragic loss both to Mr McBride’s family and to critical debates in Scotland. As the First Minister said, he will be sadly missed.
This week, Joan McAlpine, the First Minister’s parliamentary aide, likened Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom to that of a woman in an abusive marriage. Does the First Minister agree?
Joan McAlpine did not do that. Despite feeling the need to misrepresent, the Labour Party really should not treat hugely important issues in such a fashion. In her column, Joan McAlpine talked about the abuse of power; there are abuses of power by the Westminster Government over Scotland. The Labour Party should try to treat the hugely important issue of abuse against women with the importance that it deserves, instead of feeling the desperate need to misrepresent what other people say.
The First Minister should be very careful about suggesting that people on this side of the chamber wish to diminish the issues of domestic abuse and violence in the home. The reality is that there has been commitment and co-operation across the Parliament to address those problems, which is precisely why the First Minister should reflect on what his aide said. How the First Minister handles his aide is entirely a matter for him, but I do not know many people who, on coming out of an abusive marriage, have then entered a social union and kept the same bank account, which is what the First Minister has suggested for a separate Scotland.
The First Minister needs to deal with the fact that his aide’s analogies are as offensive to women as his policies are damaging. As a result of those policies, 400 women are being put out of work every day. It is not, as his aide alleges, being part of the UK that is holding women back; rather, Tory cuts have been compounded by the First Minister’s inaction. That is why female unemployment is higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK. When is the First Minister going to start doing something to help women back to work? Is it the case that, like everything else, we are going to have to wait his 1,000 days for a referendum before he lifts a finger?
As I have pointed out to Johann Lamont, a hugely important issue should not be demeaned by taking someone’s remarks totally out of context and distorting them. There are plenty of abuses of power by Westminster over Scotland; today, for example, I regard the Remploy employees as suffering from such an abuse of power, I regard the cuts to the disability living allowance in Scotland as a huge abuse of power, and I regard the plans to replace the Trident missiles on the Clyde as an enormous abuse of power that should be sorted out in Scotland.
As for how we as a Parliament have challenged that serious issue, I am sure that Johann Lamont would be the first to acknowledge that, against the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of Westminster cuts—cuts that Alistair Darling told us would be “deeper and tougher” than those of Margaret Thatcher—the fact that investment in key areas in Scotland has not only been maintained but increased is a huge tribute to the commitment of our Government and our Parliament.
For example, funding to tackle violence against women, including domestic abuse, has doubled. It has increased from £21 million over three years to £55 million in the four years from 2008 to 2012. Against the background of the cuts imposed from Westminster, those figures surely indicate this Government’s endeavour—our joint endeavour—to give those hugely important issues the priority that they deserve.
I have acknowledged the commitment across the Parliament on domestic abuse, and I recognise the funding that exists for that.
I hear from the First Minister a critique of what the Tories in Westminster have done—they are a problem because they are Tories, not because they are English—but I hear nothing about his responsibilities. I was making the point that the unemployment rate for women is higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that that is the First Minister’s responsibility.
The Deputy First Minister has also been making grand promises this week. Apparently, only in an independent Scotland can we have policies that do not offend our sense of decency. However, on her Government’s watch, the fuel poverty rate is double that in England, and she does nothing. Childcare costs are higher than in the United Kingdom and one in four children lives in poverty, but she does nothing.
Is this not the mañana Government? It is doing nothing for people who are in difficulty today, but is promising them the world tomorrow—a tomorrow that is at least a thousand days away.
The reason why a Tory Government rules over key areas of Scottish life is precisely that the Labour Party accepted the position of Westminster control over vital areas of Scotland.
There is, at present, a huge difficulty with unemployment in various sectors of society that is affecting women and young people. However, Johann Lamont should at least acknowledge the employment rate: that is, the number of people who are in jobs. There are 10,000 more women employed in Scotland than there were just over a year ago. [Alex Salmond has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] The number of women in jobs is the highest across these islands: the employment rate for women in Scotland is higher than it is in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That should be acknowledged.
I have already stressed to Johann Lamont the importance that I place on the figures for modern apprenticeships—the apprenticeships that the Labour Party voted against, we must remember, in the budget debate. The figure for women who are participating in modern apprenticeships has moved from 27 per cent at the disgracefully low level of 15,000 or 16,000, to 45 per cent at the much-increased level of 25,000. I hope that we can unite as a Parliament to look at that figure of 25,000 modern apprenticeships not only in relation to this year, but stretching through the next five years, and see the percentage of young women who learn trades and skills ever increasing. That will contribute to our acknowledgement as a Parliament of women’s critical role in work and in Scottish society.
If the First Minister was talking to women, he would know that his figures on women’s employment mask something much more serious. We have lost more than 100,000 full-time jobs to temporary and part-time jobs. Women in local government—which he has targeted for cuts—and in the voluntary sector are having their hours cut. The figures mask the fact that women are suffering disproportionately from unemployment and underemployment.
The gap between the words and the reality grows as we speak. Last week, the First Minister told us that the only thing that Rupert Murdoch got when he visited him was
“a cup of tea and a ... caramel wafer”.—[Official Report, 1 March 2012 ; c 6828.]
We have now found out that he also offered Murdoch a multimillion-pound tax cut.
There is a pattern here. All that a working person—[Interruption.]
Order. We will hear the member, please.
All that a working person who needs help gets from the First Minister is warm words about what might happen in 1,000 days, but Fred Goodwin gets all the backing that the First Minister can muster, Donald Trump gets direct access to the chief planning officer, and Rupert Murdoch gets offers of multimillion-pound tax cuts in exchange for headlines. Some people might say that Scotland is being bought and sold for Murdoch gold. Is it not about time that we heard less, that women heard less, and that families across this country heard less about the First Minister’s fantasies for tomorrow and more about how he will deal with the realities of today?
That lot indicates that Johann Lamont would do better to focus on one subject at a time during question time. Let us look at the substantive issues. [Interruption.]
Order. We will hear the First Minister.
Johann Lamont is better at asking questions badly on one subject than she is at asking them badly on six subjects, in my opinion. Let me give her the statistics. I accept that unemployment is far too high, but 10,000 more women are in work than were in work just over a year ago. [Alex Salmond has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] The figure for employment—people who are actually in jobs—which is a very important figure, is 66.8 per cent in Scotland as opposed to 65.3 per cent in England.
The amount of young women who are just starting modern apprenticeships is at 45 per cent, and the training for work figure has gone up from 28 per cent three years ago to 35 per cent now. There is still more work to do but, again, the figures indicate that young women are taking their rightful place in the workforce.
The figure for young women who are leaving school and going on to the positive destinations of full-time education, employment or training is now at 90.4 per cent—an increase from 87.8 per cent in 2006-07.
The Government’s commitment to no compulsory redundancies in our controlled public sector and the health service is vital for all workers, but it is particularly vital for women, given their importance in the public sector workforce.
Finally, of course, there is the Government’s delivery of—not a commitment to, or a promise of—something that the Labour Government never did, which is the living wage at £7.23 an hour across our controlled public sector. That is why last year, when it came to the test, it was not just a vast majority of Scottish men, but also a substantial majority of Scottish women who gave this Government their endorsement and placed their hopes in this Government for improving the lot of women and Scottish society by getting control of the towering heights of this economy, so that we can mould a better future free of Tory government.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. I thank the First Minister for his warm words about Paul McBride. Paul made a huge contribution to Scottish public life and he had many friends in the chamber. The thoughts of the Conservative Party are with his partner and family at this time.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00513)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the immediate future.
Today, the Scottish Conservatives announced plans to support the Government’s Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill in return for concessions that will help industry, such as voluntary notification to Europe and a vital sunset clause so that, although we hope that the measure works to reduce problem drinking across Scotland, Scottish industry will not be penalised in perpetuity should the legislation prove to be not effective.
Yesterday, the Scottish Conservatives tried to help employers by blocking the retail levy, which is a Scotland-only tax that is designed to be a £95 million cash grab to allow the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to plug holes in his budget, aided and abetted by Labour. This punitive tax, unheralded in the SNP manifesto, and with no assessment of its impact on Scottish retailers, will result in Scottish retailers having the highest business poundage for more than 20 years. Asda has already said that this uncompetitive tax will add significant costs to its business in Scotland, and has warned that future projects might now be scrapped.
Can the First Minister tell me how many young people are employed by the retail sector in Scotland right now?
I welcome the change in the Conservative Party’s position on minimum pricing. The matter was touched on in my recent discussions on the constitution with the Prime Minister. Since the election, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have seen the importance and crucial nature of Scotland confronting its difficulties with alcohol and have recognised that the proposed legislation is worth trying to see whether we can combat that scourge on society. I welcome the movement by the Liberal Democrats and now the Conservatives to try, as a Parliament, to make the measure a success.
I do not agree with Ruth Davidson on the impact that she feels the retail levy will have. She mentioned Asda, which announced plans for three new stores and a replacement depot in Scotland on 23 January, in full knowledge of the Government’s plans for the retail levy. If Ruth Davidson wants to say that we do not need to make that move to fund crucial public spending—incidentally, she called for additional public spending on those areas, oblivious to the fact that the pressure on our budget comes from her colleagues at Westminster—perhaps she will detail for us here and now what she would cut or where she would raise the money, rather than have a completely proportionate levy that will allow a vital contribution to health education and the general confronting of the problems with alcohol.
I am not going to say, “Better one sinner who repenteth,”—
You have said it.
I point out to Mr McLetchie that I was only sayin it so as I didnae say it. I will withdraw it, if that helps.
I want us to treat this vital matter of taking the initiative and having the courage to introduce minimum pricing as part of an overall and general approach to confronting the scourge and evil of Scotland’s problem with alcohol.
The retail levy has no preventative properties in terms of health. It does not target retailers that sell alcohol and tobacco; it merely targets the largest and it is not a proportional cost based on the amount of alcohol or tobacco that is sold. Frankly, to call it a “health levy” is a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, whose numbers did not add up.
The First Minister did not answer my question on youth employment, so I will answer it for him. More than a third of all Scots who work in retail are under the age of 25. The sector supports 80,000 young people directly and is a gateway to employment in other industries for thousands more. Sixty-two per cent of all retail jobs are done by women. The Confederation of British Industry Scotland, the Scottish Property Federation, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the British Council of Shopping Centres all condemn the tax as being damaging to Scotland.
The First Minister says that he wants to be trusted with all Scotland’s taxes. We now see what he would do with them: he would put them up and damage the very companies that are preventing Scotland’s youth unemployment figures from rising above the already scandalous figure of 102,000 young people on the dole. It is not too late for the First Minister. Will he now scrap this cynical and anti-competitive £95 million tax that will endanger jobs and investment in Scotland?
As gently as I can, I remind Ruth Davidson that the application of a 2.5 per cent increase in VAT had 10 times the impact that the retail levy will have. Not only that, but the VAT increase applied to goods and services and companies across the board. The public health supplement—the title contains the clue to what will be done with the revenue—applies to 0.1 per cent of retail outlets in Scotland. Their business rates, which currently account for 2 per cent of their turnover, will with the supplement increase to an estimated 2.3 per cent of turnover. The party that swept the VAT increase into the Scottish economy a year ago is now oblivious to the public health levy’s minor impact on a small number of very large retailers, which will help to finance critical areas of preventative spend in Scotland.
After publication of “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2010-11” yesterday, I point out to Ruth Davidson that, if we had access to the £2.6 billion that was lost to the Westminster Treasury in last year’s accounts—£509 for every man, woman and child in Scotland—we would have a range of choices open to us that are not open under Tory rule from Westminster.
The First Minister will be aware of the UK Government’s decision to close four Remploy factories in Scotland, including one in Springburn. I am sure that he will share my concern about how the announcement was made and the situation in which the workers have been placed.
What actions will the Government take to support Remploy workers in Scotland? Will the First Minister encourage the increased use of section 19 provisions in Government procurement? Did the Government respond formally to the consultation on the Sayce report? If not, what action did it take to influence its outcome?
We have been in discussions on that very matter, which made it all the more disappointing that we received our first notification about the decision on Remploy only yesterday afternoon, when Maria Miller told Fergus Ewing about the announcement. The decision and the way in which it was communicated are matters of great disappointment, given the number of discussions we had about the general issue.
Patricia Ferguson touched on the important issue of section 19. In October 2010, the public contracts Scotland portal developed a re-registration process to identify supported businesses for buyers. That work is on-going, but it has already had a substantial effect. Since October 2010, a total of nine framework agreements have been awarded to supported businesses, to the value of £13.7 million. The latest financial data for this key area confirm that £24 million was spent on Scotland-based supported business by the Scottish public sector in the past financial year.
I share Patricia Ferguson’s great disappointment and concern. The announcement was, at best, ill-timed and insensitive. The necessary preparations do not seem to have been made to guide the 104 disabled people—Remploy employed 111 people in Scotland—into productive employment. Discussions must start as quickly as possible and the UK Government must accept its responsibility for the situation in which it has placed so many vulnerable people.
Following the Royal Bank of Scotland’s announcement that 120 jobs are to be cut in my constituency, what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that employees who are made redundant are supported into new employment? Does the First Minister agree that, at a time when RBS requires solid political leadership, Vince Cable’s recent statements demonstrate why Scotland should be in charge of its own banking regulations?
Vince Cable’s comments were made in a leaked letter, rather than a statement, but if the Royal Bank of Scotland was broken up, that would have substantial implications for the headquarters workforce in Scotland. I regret that Vince Cable’s memo to the Prime Minister did not acknowledge that important issue.
I share Colin Keir’s concern about the job losses that have been announced by RBS, and about the impact on the employees affected and their families. Fergus Ewing has already provided full details of the support that is being provided through PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—and the finance sector jobs task force.
The task force operates under the auspices of FiSAB—the Financial Services Advisory Board—and the agreement between the financial sector and the Scottish Government, and has had substantial success in allowing people who have been released by the clearing banks to find other financial sector employment. That has been a substantial success over the past few years.
I hope that that goes some way to assuring Colin Keir of what we are doing. We will do everything possible to minimise the time that individuals who are made redundant spend out of work.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. (S4F-00517)
We will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
In the first edition of The Scottish Sun on Sunday, the First Minister played down the role of The Sun, the News of the World and News International in the phone hacking scandal. By using the defence, “It wasn’t just them—others did it, too,” the First Minister lent his support to Rupert Murdoch, yet was silent on the victims of phone hacking. Does the First Minister believe that hundreds of phone hacking victims and their families will be satisfied with his failure to stand up to News International?
I do not know whether Willie Rennie managed to attend First Minister’s question time last week, when I reiterated and made absolutely clear my full support for the police investigations south and north of the border and my full support for the Leveson inquiry. Since the then Government did absolutely nothing about it, he should take on board the findings of operation Motorman. I promised last week that the document would be placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre, in case the identification by the information commissioner of potential criminality in respect of data protection had not been fully understood by members. I advise Willie Rennie to read the list, which extends across the London press—there are very few Scottish examples in the analysis. Every part of that document should be analysed, and we should support the police inquiries into phone hacking and the Leveson inquiry to the hilt.
I hope that, now that that has been explained to Willie Rennie, he accepts our total commitment to seeing the law upheld.
The First Minister prefers to cosy up rather than stand up to Rupert Murdoch. Earlier this week, he was caught bragging about Rupert Murdoch’s support for Scottish independence. We have discovered that Rupert Murdoch wants to break up Britain in revenge for the Leveson phone hacking inquiry, and our First Minister is only too happy to leap on that and ignore the victims. That was the trade: “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.” The problem is not the column in The Scottish Sun on Sunday, the fireside chats with Rupert Murdoch or even the free tickets to the golf. The problem is that, rather than stand up to Rupert Murdoch, the First Minister has defended him and put his interest above the interests of the victims. Is the First Minister not ashamed of this grubby deal?
Willie Rennie would do well to read what I said last week and at least hear my answer to his first question before reading out his second question.
It is reasonable to make the point that the Government is totally committed to upholding the police investigations in England and Scotland, upholding the Leveson inquiry and asking for the law to be enforced and upheld, which clearly has not been done in recent years. I suggest that Willie Rennie has a good look at the findings of operation Motorman to see the extent of potential criminality across the Fleet Street press and the number of titles that were named by the information commissioner in that report.
I was going to talk about Michael Brown, Liberal Democrat donors and how the Liberal Democrats are in no position to lecture anyone about their associates. Liberal Democrats have always wanted to adopt a holier-than-thou position in politics—the party that put the moan into “sanctimony”.
Economy
4. To ask the First Minister what the implications are of the findings in the Scottish Government’s recently published “State of the Economy” report. (S4F-00530)
The “State of the Economy” report highlighted the challenge facing the global economy and the economic outlook for the months ahead. The Scottish Government has taken and continues to take decisive action to promote growth and to create jobs, helping Scotland to face the recession, so that—although still extremely serious—it is both shorter and shallower than the recession in the United Kingdom as a whole. That fact is confirmed by the report, as are the extraordinary challenges that will face public spending for years to come if we remain under the thumb and under the control of the London Treasury.
Does the First Minister share my concern that UK Government cuts and revised inflation forecasts will cause the Scottish Government’s spending power to fall in real terms by 18 per cent over seven years, meaning that the cumulative loss to the Scottish budget over the period could be £51 billion—£10,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland? Does he agree that, as figures in the report “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2010-11” revealed yesterday, an independent Scotland would be in a stronger fiscal position than the UK as a whole, with a lower per capita debt, and would therefore be better able to stimulate investment, generate growth, create jobs, raise living standards and improve the quality of life of everyone living in Scotland?
Yes, I agree. The figures that were published yesterday with the official kitemark showed a difference of £2.6 billion, which is equivalent to £510 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Facts are chiels that winna ding. The figures speak for themselves and the anti-independence parties in the chamber had better get used to hearing about it, because they are going to hear a lot more of it.
Public Entertainment Licensing
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will issue guidance on the new public entertainment licensing regime. (S4F-00515)
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to assist licensing authorities this week by setting out the powers that they have to decide what they wish to license and not to license. The amendment to the law was introduced to allow local authorities to control and ensure safety at large-scale free-to-enter events, such as raves and fireworks displays.
When local authorities take licensing decisions, we expect them to take account of the impact on cultural activity and small-scale events in their areas, to continue to support the fantastic individual, grass-roots and community-based artistic talent in Scotland. That is the case at any time but is particularly important in the year of creative Scotland.
As Malcolm Chisholm asked the question, I am pleased to note that the City of Edinburgh Council has indicated that no free cultural events for audiences of less than 200 people will be affected.
I thank the First Minister for the letter, which was at long last issued yesterday, so soon after my question appeared in the Business Bulletin. Last week, I spoke at a constituency meeting of more than 200 people who were very concerned about the threat to grass-roots culture and very annoyed about the new licensing legislation and the absence of any guidance about it. Given that the Scottish Government did not understand the immediate implications of its proposed legislation when questioned about it at stage 1, will it now take every action possible to promote and support our vibrant grass-roots culture in this year of creative Scotland?
I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on his question and on eliciting the response that I am about to give him. I gently point out that the problem cannot really have been legislative; if it had been, a letter of guidance could not have sorted it. As he is well aware, local authorities have discretion under the legislation, which they are now using. I hope that he welcomes the excellent letter of guidance that has gone out to local authorities from Kenny MacAskill.
Incidentally, I would be the last person to say that independent-minded members of the Parliament cannot have a key role in asking key questions on issues that are of public concern. I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on doing that.
Agriculture (Subsidies)
6. To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to prevent those not actively farming from being able to claim agricultural subsidies. (S4F-00518)
It is totally unacceptable that speculators are using a loophole in the legislation to claim single farm payments while doing nothing in return. We are ensuring that that loophole is closed in the common agricultural policy reform negotiations that are under way, through the so-called Scottish clause.
The position is not as simple as using the existing legislation to define an active farmer. Independent analysis identified that if we tried to use the current legislation, we would end up not just closing the loophole but depriving a range of very active farmers—particularly crofters—of key parts of their livelihood.
According to the BBC documentary “The Money Farmers”, which was broadcast earlier this week, millions are being spent every year on subsidies to individuals who do not farm in Scotland. On that programme, the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development said that the Scottish Government had the power to close the loophole two years ago but did not do so. Will the Scottish Government now act with urgency and work, if necessary with the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission, to change the current unacceptable position without further delay?
I thought that I had explained the situation. The problem with using the active farmer definition, as the European commissioner suggested, is that that would almost certainly penalise many crofting interests in Scottish circumstances. I am sure that Murdo Fraser’s support for farmers in Scotland extends from large farmers right down to small farmers and crofters, who have always been such a preoccupation of the Conservative Party over the years, and that he would not want us in closing a loophole in the existing legislation to end up disadvantaging and having an impact on a vital and traditional form of farming and land tenure in rural Scotland.
The crofting situation might not be immediately familiar to many people across the European continent, but it should be familiar to people in the Parliament. The loophole will be closed under new European guidelines. The so-called Scottish clause—for which we have argued, with the support of the UK Government, which faces a similar circumstance south of the border but not of the same proportion—will allow the loophole to be closed without disadvantaging Scotland’s crofting community. When that happens—it cannot happen soon enough for us—Murdo Fraser, I and the rest of the Parliament will be able to unite on closing the loophole without putting crofters at a disadvantage.
12:35
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—