Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00461)
Later today, I will be speaking to the chief executive officer of Scottish wind turbine manufacturer Gaia-Wind, who has today announced the signing of a £5 million contract to provide up to 200 small turbines for installation in England and Wales. I am sure that the whole chamber will wish to welcome a successful company agreeing contracts and enhancing its reputation as a leading manufacturer of small wind turbines across these islands.
Indeed we do.
The new Forth crossing is the most expensive public project in Scottish history and is central to attempts to sustain and grow Scottish businesses and to create much-needed jobs. The project should have a legacy that goes beyond a bridge; people understand that. So why did the First Minister sign away the contracts—and the Scottish jobs—to Spain, Poland and China?
In reality, 118 out of 155 subcontracts for the project have been awarded to Scottish companies, which represents 76 per cent of the total. As for supply orders, for 870 out of 1,041—[Interruption] That is 83.5 per cent, Ms Baillie, the principal contract for which has been awarded to Scottish companies, which is a very substantial percentage. That means that the Forth replacement crossing project will support 1,200 Scottish jobs and secure an additional 3,000. Every year, construction will deliver 45 vocational training positions, 21 places on professional bodies and 46 positions for the long-term unemployed, and it will maximise the number of modern apprenticeship opportunities. All in all, it looks to me like Scotland is getting a substantially good deal from the Forth replacement crossing.
I am stunned by the limit of the ambition that the First Minister shows. This contract was to be a legacy for the people of this country and for the economy but, on his own minister’s account, it is worth £20 million out of a contract worth £1.5 billion. The First Minister has no excuses. In Wales, a Labour Government had the political will to ensure that Welsh companies had equal access to public contracts, thereby saving businesses and creating jobs, but rather than look to our neighbours, Alex Salmond went to China and pulled off a master deal—the Chinese got an £800 million steel contract and we got two pandas. If Wales can deliver for Welsh businesses, what is stopping the Scottish First Minister delivering for Scottish businesses and Scottish families?
The total value of the principal contract for the Forth replacement crossing is £790 million, of which the steel component represents 5 to 10 per cent. I am not sure whether Johann Lamont knows this, but we do not have manufacturing facilities for steel fabrication in Scotland thanks to the depredations of past Westminster Governments, and so no firms that submitted tenders for the steel fabrication subcontracts were Scottish. Perhaps a quarter to a half of the 5 to 10 per cent of the £790 million is for steel plating, which we do produce in Scotland. Johann Lamont says that there is an £800 million contract, but steel represents only 5 to 10 per cent of that, of which 25 to 50 per cent is the sort of steel that we produce in Scotland. I know that this is not the script that she wanted to hear, but having 76 per cent of all the subcontracts awarded to Scottish companies not only represents a good deal for Scottish companies but is amazingly better than anything that happened when the Labour Party was in power in Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order. Ms Baillie, could you please keep quiet?
The First Minister thinks that this is a game. The script that the people of Scotland want to hear is not one in which he says, “Oh, it’s not £1.5 billion; it’s £20 million out of £790 million, so that makes it okay.” That is a tiny proportion of the money.
The reality is that the biggest contract in Scotland for a generation is creating jobs in Spain, in Poland and in China. Alex Salmond is spending £800 million on steel—[Interruption]—and from that contract not a single job is being created in Scotland, at a time when 200 people are losing their jobs every day. Even the London Olympics have benefited Scottish companies to the tune of £100 million—five times more than the benefit from the Forth replacement crossing contract.
How can it be value for money in the long term to send abroad the profits, business creation, research and development and high-quality jobs that such big contracts generate? How can that make sense?
There is a great disadvantage in reading from a script. Occasionally a person reads a wrong line; but it also means that they do not listen to the answers.
In my previous answer, I pointed out that the total value of the contract is £790 million, of which 5 to 10 per cent is for the steel contract. We do not do fabricated steel in Scotland. Of the fabricated steel contract, perhaps a quarter to a half is steel plate, which we do in Scotland.
Now that Johann Lamont realises that the £800 million figure that she was given in her script is not the actual figure, which is a small fraction of that, will she revise her opinion of the total impact of what the Scottish Government is doing?
I agree with Johann Lamont that we must do our absolute best to ensure that contracts come to Scottish companies. Johann Lamont would have been in the chamber at the time, so I wonder if she remembers Jack McConnell, at First Minister’s question time on 16 June 2005, saying, “restricted I am by the rules of procurement”, and having to explain why a fisheries protection vessel was going to a Polish shipyard instead of Ferguson Shipbuilders at Port Glasgow. What a contrast with Alex Neil’s announcement in November of a £20 million contract for a new ferry for Ferguson’s in Scotland.
And he accuses me of not being able to read my script. [Laughter.] I am sure that it was well worth it for civil servants to do the research to find that quotation.
Can we deal with what people in this country are saying now? They include Community trade union workers, who are concerned about their jobs, and all the businesses and people—beyond steel—who thought that the contract would bring work to their communities.
A fortnight ago, in response to the shocking unemployment figures, the First Minister claimed that his Government puts the greatest emphasis on job creation; yet here we are in a situation in which Scottish trade unionists from the Dalzell steelworks have written to David Cameron—I cannot believe that I am saying this, but I have the letter here—to ask a Tory Prime Minister to protect them from the actions of a Scottish First Minister. [Interruption.] I know, I cannot believe it either. The steelworkers and Community trade unionists in Scotland wrote:
“To date, First Minister, Alex Salmond MSP, has failed to give any satisfactory explanation why foreign suppliers were given preference over Scottish firms”.
Why is the First Minister not doing his job? Why is he not standing up for Scotland? Will he stand up for Scottish workers and instruct an immediate review of a disgraceful contract, which will have huge consequences in our communities?
Let us try four reasons. First, given that Johann Lamont did not return to the issue, I think that we are probably agreed that we are talking about not an £800 million contract but about 5 to 10 per cent of that.
Secondly, can we agree that there is no steel fabrication proposal from Scotland? No firm that submitted a tender for the steel fabrication subcontracts was Scottish. That is because we do not have steel fabrication facilities in Scotland any more, thanks to the depredations of past United Kingdom Governments—Labour and Conservative.
Thirdly, can we agree that there is substantial evidence, from the figures on subcontracts that I put forward, that 76 per cent of subcontracts have been awarded to Scottish companies?
Fourthly, can we agree, as Johann Lamont must be aware, that contracts cannot just be directed to go to Scottish companies but have to be competitively placed out? By establishing the portal for contracts, this Government has allowed tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses in Scotland to obtain the benefit of public procurement and purchasing. That has happened under this Administration. Under a past Administration, largely due to Labour’s fascination with the private finance initiative, there was no ability whatsoever to influence those things.
Given that Ms Lamont now knows the actual value of the contract, that she probably now knows that there are no steel fabricating facilities in Scotland, that she now knows that 76 per cent of the subcontracts have gone to Scottish companies, and that she is aware of the efforts that have been made through the portal, will she finally agree that the situation is hugely better now than it was under the Administration of her and her colleagues?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
Now that he is finally live on the BBC, I ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00451)
I understand that, on the basis that the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully recovered, we are meeting this coming Monday.
After the First Minister claiming grudge and grievance for being pulled from BBC radio and television sports programmes, it has emerged that it was in fact he who asked the BBC, not once, not twice but three times if he could be a rugby pundit. On reflection, does the First Minister think that it was acceptable to use the bully pulpit of his office to liken a BBC employee to a Nazi? Will he now apologise?
Let us take those points in turn. I assume a number of things: first, that Ruth Davidson will be aware that the noun “gauleiter” is defined in “Chambers 21st Century Dictionary” as
“an overbearing wielder of petty authority”.
It has been used in public parlance a number of times. There is nothing—[Interruption.]
Order!
There is nothing petty about the authority that the Tory Government in London tries to exert over Scotland.
I hope that Ruth Davidson is aware that the tradition that we have come to expect in the BBC is that editorial and journalistic decisions are free to be made and not overridden by political factors. Of course my programme, including my attendance at the rugby on Saturday, was made available to news outlets of all kinds, as indeed was Ruth Davidson’s, because I saw her pre-release that very day.
I have an e-mail from Carl Hicks, the head of sport at the BBC, which I am happy to put in the Scottish Parliament information centre to correct Ruth Davidson’s misapprehensions. The proposal is:
“I’ve been having a little think and I’d like to ask if the First Minister would take part in our six nations challenge.”
He goes on to describe the nature of the programme he wants me to take part in, saying:
“I think this would be a great way of us involving the First Minister in the BBC’s TV coverage. We’d be doing this live in the west carpark, it would be live around 1.45. Happy to discuss any of this. I am currently checking this out with our editorial policy team but we don’t anticipate any problems.”
The reason why Mr Hicks did not anticipate any problems was that he did not know that there would be an instruction from the political adviser to withdraw the First Minister of Scotland from a programme. Journalists have a right to expect better from the British Broadcasting Corporation.
By “having a wee think” presumably he meant after the First Minister’s office had been on the phone.
With such outrage at the weekend, I thought that I would check the First Minister’s rugby qualifications. He has the build for it; surely he must have a glittering career behind him. However, in the Linlithgow academy rugby team archive, there is no mention of A Salmond, and there is no mention of him in the University of St Andrews rugby team or the Royal Bank of Scotland rugby club.
In today’s papers, the First Minister’s official spokesman says that the First Minister is so outraged that he will raise the snub with the head of the BBC trust, Lord Patten. This is all about the First Minister—his bruised ego and his injured pride. Today’s meeting was supposed to be about the future of broadcasting, people’s jobs, their careers and their livelihoods. Those are surely more important than the First Minister’s stymied ambitions. Will he confirm to the Parliament, to those who are broadcasting this exchange on the BBC and to those who are watching at home that he will not waste a second of his meeting with Lord Patten on this petty sideshow but will focus on what matters—Scottish jobs?
I am afraid that the reasons that were given for the BBC’s withdrawal of the invitation that its sports editor made are not petty and really must be confronted. There were two reasons. One was the proximity to the local government elections. We are not in the local government election period. Secondly, there was the claim of heightened tension in the political arena. Now, there might be some heightened tension on the Tory back benches, but what I detect is taking place is merely political debate.
If this period of heightened tension is to last for the next two and a quarter years, can I assume that we will not be treated to the sight of David Cameron on any Olympics coverage from London? Can I assume that, during this period of heightened tension, politicians will not be asked to take part in sports programmes? We will never get the benefit of Ruth Davidson’s opinions on rugby football or anything else—even on kick boxing, in which I understand she has substantial expertise. This is a nonsensical decision.
If the BBC is going to adopt the position that politicians are to be withdrawn from broadcasts, overriding journalistic and editorial decisions, we will go down a very difficult road indeed. It should be entirely possible to revert to a position where journalistic and editorial judgment is sacrosanct in the BBC, or is this just another reason why we must ensure that Scottish broadcasting is free from diktats from London? [Interruption.]
Finally, when I meet Chris Patten this afternoon, I will not—[Interruption.]
Order. Please settle down.
I will not make the accusation this afternoon that Chris Patten’s former chairmanship of the Conservative Party has anything to do with current BBC decision making.
Presiding Officer, you will be aware of the uncertainty that is facing thousands of Clydesdale Bank workers. Clydesdale Bank is headquartered in Glasgow and is a major employer across Scotland. It is a strategically important company for the Scottish economy, and it is the bank of many small and medium-sized businesses.
Following the Scottish Government’s reported contact with Clydesdale Bank, what assurances can the First Minister offer its workers and their families, who face an uncertain beginning to 2012 as a result of the statements from the parent bank, National Australia Bank? Specifically, will the First Minister agree to meet Unite the Union, as representatives of the workforce, to listen to their fears and hear at first hand their suggestions on how the long-term future of the business as a Scotland-headquartered company can be secured?
I have already spoken to the chief executive of Clydesdale Bank—and I know that Mr Swinney has spoken to him as well—about the implications of the statement from the chief executive officer. I gladly agree to meet Unite the Union and workers’ representatives as well.
The statement from the chief executive officer in Australia should give us great cause for concern. He certainly cited in relation to the structural review of the Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks the underlying difficulties of the euro zone, but he also cited in the strongest terms the United Kingdom Government’s policy of retrenchment, the period of austerity and the lack of growth prospects in the United Kingdom economy.
A lot of us will find it somewhat ironic that, on the one hand, we have baseless claims from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact on investment of constitutional change in Scotland while, on the other, the chief executive officer of one of the world’s major banks is pointing directly to the United Kingdom Government’s austerity programme as a reason for having a significant review of the bank and its policies. We will certainly meet the unions and workers and continue a dialogue with Clydesdale Bank and Yorkshire Bank to protect employment in Scotland, but let us hear no more of the argument that a no-growth austerity programme is good for jobs and investment in Scotland.
As the First Minister will be aware, last week Ross and Bonnyman, which has been based in Forfar since 1973 and specialises in designing and manufacturing lifting products, went into liquidation with the loss of 80 jobs. Does the First Minister share my concern about the impact of such job losses on this small community? What support can the Scottish Government provide to ensure that some highly skilled members of that workforce find employment as swiftly as possible?
I share the member’s concern about Ross and Bonnyman’s going into administration and the impact that it will have on the affected employees, their families and indeed the whole town of Forfar. I assure the member that we are doing everything possible to minimise the time that the individuals affected by redundancy are out of work and confirm that we have already taken immediate action through partnership action for continuing employment to provide support for the affected employees. The local PACE team is also at this moment discussing arrangements for an event for employees in the Reid hall in Forfar to give people the opportunity to meet a range of partners for advice and support. I understand that interest has been expressed by an employer in the area who is seeking to recruit employees, and we will do everything we can to facilitate that and other such interest.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00454)
The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Before Scotland’s freedom of information commissioner, Kevin Dunion, stood down last week, he warned that Scotland’s freedom of information system is at risk of slipping behind that of other countries, including the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely that is a serious blow to our aims of being a beacon for progress. Why did the First Minister block the extension of information laws to cover housing associations, private finance initiative companies and other public bodies?
There are two answers to that question. First, the freedom of information laws in Scotland are substantially better and more progressive than those elsewhere. Secondly, representations from a range of organisations explained why this time of some difficulty would not be the moment to extend freedom of information legislation. I gently point out to Willie Rennie that if the Liberal party had thought this issue to be so important, it would have used its very substantial influence in the last coalition Administration to bring forward such legislation in Scotland.
We are very proud of the progress that we made on freedom of information when we were in government; the First Minister should reflect on the progress that he has made. I also point out that it was Kevin Dunion who said that Scotland was in danger of slipping behind the rest of the UK. The First Minister seems to have let others’ objections overrule the commissioner’s sensible proposals.
Access to information is important in a free and liberal Scotland if we are to challenge those who wield power. Why can tenants in Lanarkshire get information about their rent increases while tenants in Glasgow cannot? How can an arm’s-length company spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money dodge giving answers while councils cannot? It was not me but Kevin Dunion who said:
“I am not entirely clear why the Government has decided to row back”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 10 January 2012; c 811.]
Can the First Minister be clear? He always wants to be David but is he not now Goliath, blocking the rights of ordinary Scots?
No—I will stick to being David, if that is all right. I remember the result of that particular contest.
The matter is under consideration and we are sympathetic to suggestions. I am particularly sympathetic to the suggestion that we examine PFI contracts in detail, although I gently point out to the member that we have not signed many such contracts as opposed to the huge volumes that were signed by the Labour and Liberal parties when they were in government in Scotland. One might argue that that is why the public procurement policy supported by this Government is proving significantly more successful than our predecessors’ private procurement policy.
Leuchars (Multirole Brigade)
To ask the First Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the establishment of a multirole brigade at Leuchars. (S4F-00460)
The impact of the United Kingdom Government’s basing review decisions on Leuchars and other affected communities throughout Scotland remains a key concern for the Scottish Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence on Friday 3 February to request an urgent meeting to discuss progress and to seek reassurance that the commitments that were made in July 2011 will stand, including that Leuchars will become home to part of the multirole brigade.
The First Minister will be aware of press comments, saying that the secretary of state, Philip Hammond, has cast doubt over the deployment of the multirole brigade, seven months after his predecessor confirmed that very commitment in a statement to the House of Commons. Does the First Minister agree that such fearmongering is very unsettling for my constituents? Will he join me in condemning the comments, and urge Mr Hammond to offer clarity on the situation as a matter of urgency?
Roderick Campbell makes a very good point about his constituents. When communities accept military bases—whether those are air force or army bases—they have a right to expect a long-term commitment. That is exactly the long-term commitment that the Scottish National Party proposes the Government should give.
The defence review last year took some very hard decisions for Scotland. There were hard decisions for Kinloss and for Leuchars but, following significant cross-party representations from this Parliament and others, a policy was announced that in the overall balance had some benefits for Scotland. It would be disgraceful if there was any attempt by the new defence secretary to unpick that arrangement. Of course, he has not said that that is the policy; he has hinted at it in a letter to a member of Parliament. In policy terms, the Ministry of Defence says that there is no change from last year’s commitment.
I will say two things. First, politicians—whether they are the Secretary of State for Defence or anyone else—should not use the future of bases as some sort of political weapon in arguments by hinting to MPs in letters. Secondly, the outrage in Scotland if there is any reneging on the commitments that were made last year would encompass every part of the community and every single party in Scotland.
Secondary Education (National Exams)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the introduction of new national exams in 2013-14 is on schedule. (S4F-00459)
The new national qualifications are on course for 2013-14. The track record of the curriculum for excellence programme shows that we have met every target and request for additional support from education authorities. In taking forward implementation of curriculum for excellence, dispensation for targeted delays of one year to new national qualifications will be available where the circumstances justify it.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has assured Parliament that the introduction of curriculum for excellence is on track, but Scotland’s teachers are telling us that the materials—and they—are not ready. Are Scotland’s teachers wrong?
That is not the view of stakeholders throughout Scotland. As Hugh Henry knows, East Renfrewshire Council is a very particular example, because it—uniquely—stopped using standard grades in 2005 and replaced them with the intermediate qualification.
The view of stakeholders is not as Hugh Henry has presented it. For example, Glenn Rodger, the president of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, says that ADES
“has been fully involved in, and remains committed to, the ... implementation of ... curriculum for excellence, including the broad general phase through to S3; an exciting and challenging senior phase; and the new qualifications framework. There has been strong consensus about this approach”.
That consensus includes teachers in Scotland, the vast majority of whom are enthusiastic about the opportunities that curriculum for excellence involves.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said on “Good Morning Scotland” last Friday that
“East Renfrewshire is in a very special position”
and that he was not surprised that it wanted to do things differently. Why, then, should all other local authorities be told that it would be tremendously disruptive if they were to do things differently?
As I have already mentioned, East Renfrewshire Council’s unique position is that it stopped using standard grades in 2005 and replaced them with the intermediate qualification. The other 31 local authorities all still use standard grades, and have all confirmed that they will move to the new national qualifications within their current secondary 2 cohort in 2013-14. The unique position of East Renfrewshire explains the difference in its decision making.
In fairness to East Renfrewshire, I point out that it has said that it is fully and absolutely committed to the implementation of curriculum for excellence, stating as it did on 31 January:
“Our staff have engaged fully in the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence and the introduction of the new Nationals and will continue to do so.”
There is a huge fund of goodwill and optimism about the new qualifications in Scotland. The curriculum for excellence has wide and broad-based support. I hope that, at some point, that broad-based support across the educational community in Scotland will be reflected across the political parties in this Parliament.
Renewables Targets (Offshore Opportunities)
To ask the First Minister how important offshore opportunities in the west of Scotland are in helping to meet the Scottish Government’s renewables targets. (S4F-00463)
Offshore renewables projects totalling 2.2GW—the Argyll array at 1.5GW and the Islay array at 680MW—have already been proposed for the west of Scotland. That is the equivalent of the power requirements of more than 1 million households. Those projects involve an estimated investment of more than £6 billion and up to 5,700 direct jobs.
The west coast is important to our offshore renewables ambitions, as set out in the Irish-Scottish links on energy study. At peak construction phase, the building of offshore grid could support up to 2,000 direct and indirect jobs in Scotland.
I am delighted that the west of Scotland will play such an important role in Scotland achieving its renewables potential.
I note that, this week, Conservative politicians made comments critical of the development of renewable energy. Will the First Minister offer my constituents in the west his reassurance on the Government’s commitment to renewables and that Tory scare stories will not affect people’s chances of gaining employment in that industry, which is vital for Scotland?
Yes, I will. Today, we heard another significant announcement: the United Kingdom Government has announced that the technology and innovation centre at the University of Strathclyde has been recognised as the headquarters of the new catapult initiative. That comes on top of the £89 million that the Scottish Government invested last year in establishing the centre, which is creating 700 new research jobs in the offshore wind sector in Scotland. Prominent people in the Conservative Party—Struan Stevenson, supported, I understand, by the former deputy leader, Murdo Fraser—are now opposing that sector. Hundreds of new jobs are coming to the city of Glasgow. Will the Conservative Party leader at any point address the people involved and explain why prominent members of her party want to eliminate their jobs? Will any Conservative politician go on a tour around the places in Scotland that already benefit from the offshore revolution—Machrihanish, Glasgow, Methil and Aberdeen—or to the places that are shortly to benefit, such as the port of Leith, Dundee or Nigg, and tell people there that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party wants to eliminate thousands of jobs in Scotland because some of its prominent members think that it will give them a press headline or two?
Given his optimistic view of opportunities on the west coast, will the First Minister tell us when we can expect a review of the national renewables infrastructure plan to ensure that the skills and infrastructure that we have in places such as Inverclyde are fully recognised to give us the best chance of gaining green jobs?
The infrastructure plan is under constant appraisal. For example, it was appraised at a meeting only yesterday.
I assure Duncan McNeil that ports the length and breadth of Scotland will benefit from the investment that is taking place in the offshore renewables industry. The announcements that have been made have been hugely encouraging for the ports involved. There are a number of announcements still to come, and the Scottish Government is ensuring that every port in every area around the coastline of Scotland is set to benefit.
The great enterprise of engineering and fabricating for the future energy requirements of not only Scotland but these islands and, perhaps, much of Europe offers the prospect of reindustrialising Scotland and, I hope, will have maximum cross-party support. That balance of cross-party support has put Scotland in the lead, and we intend to maintain that lead as we move forward. Members should give the workers and engineers in the industry a bit of backing and let them get on with the job for Scotland.
12:34 Meeting suspended.