First Minister's Question Time
I have received an unusually large number of significant constituency question requests from back benchers. I ask all members, in particular front benchers, to keep questions and answers as brief as they can do, so that I can accommodate as many of those requests as possible.
Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1855)
Later today I have engagements to carry forward the Government's programme for Scotland.
Nine hundred Diageo workers—and their families—in Kilmarnock and Glasgow are coming to terms with Diageo's decision to pay them off. Our thoughts are with them. The campaign against the closure involved all parties: trade unions, councils and the communities that are affected. I acknowledge that Mr Swinney harnessed that, to try to create a plan that would change the company's mind. I deeply regret that he was unable to do so.
This morning I read widespread criticism of the First Minister for megaphone diplomacy, for grandstanding and for choosing a television appearance over a meeting with Diageo's chief executive. Was the First Minister part of the problem and not the solution?
I start by welcoming Iain Gray's agreement, because I was surprised by his comments yesterday, from which I took a criticism of Mr Swinney. I am glad that Iain Gray seems to have thought better of that.
The argument about megaphone diplomacy concerns my attendance and speech at the anti-closure rally in Kilmarnock in July. I am proud of my attendance at that rally. I am proud of the workers, the council, the unions and all parties who attended the rally. I am proud that Annabel Goldie attended the rally. I know that Iain Gray was not there, but his party was well represented. I thought that it was a formidable and inspiring demonstration by people who were anxious to defend their right to work and their communities in Scotland. Not only will I never apologise for standing shoulder to shoulder with a workforce in its time of extremity but I am proud of a country and a community that care enough about their company and their product to rally in defence of jobs in Scotland.
I agree that the campaign was not lost at the rally. It was lost in the negotiations. The choice to go to a TV studio rather than to a meeting with Paul Walsh must surely have compromised those negotiations.
However, let us look forward. What does the First Minister plan to do now to ensure that those men and women have the opportunity to use their skills and experience in new jobs? What will he do to ensure that Diageo contributes to mitigating the damage that it is doing to communities that have served it for 200 years?
I attended many meetings with Diageo senior management, including with Mr Walsh, and there were many discussions.
The proposals that were put to Diageo were cogent and serious and were supported by all parties in the task force. They tried to reconcile Diageo's financial objectives of reducing costs and maximising profits with the social objectives of protecting communities at Port Dundas and Kilmarnock. To date the task force has not been successful. I regret that as much as Iain Gray does, but I commend everyone in the task force who made efforts to try to change Diageo's mind.
As part of the proposals that we put to Diageo, there was an offer from the council and Scottish Enterprise and from the Scottish Government on the necessary help that would be given to the areas if Diageo had to transfer its factories from Port Dundas and Kilmarnock. That will certainly be part of the Scottish Government's thinking on the matter. The unions are in negotiation today with Diageo: the 90-day consultation period has not come to an end. I assure Iain Gray that neither this Government and its agencies—nor, I think, either Glasgow City Council or East Ayrshire Council—will be found wanting in mobilising to help the communities and workforces in Kilmarnock and Port Dundas.
I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will not be found wanting in trying to mitigate the effect of this disastrous decision, but we must ask whether that will be the First Minister's priority. This week, a leaked minute showed Scotland's most senior civil servants totally geared to
"meeting the First Minister's aspirations".
Are those aspirations to defend and create jobs? No. They are creating "conflict and confrontation" with the United Kingdom Government; "expanding" the national conversation to 14 work streams, each headed up by a director; and making
"maximum use of speeches, announcements, summer tours, comms messages and stakeholder engagements"
to promote the national conversation. That is not serving Scotland; it is using Scotland.
Ask a question.
Here is a simple question. Will the First Minister stop that nonsense now and concentrate on saving jobs and getting our economy growing again?
Is it not interesting how quickly and easily Iain Gray's questions move from the serious subject of Diageo to politicking? I thought that his first two questions meant that we were going to get a serious inquisition of the measures that need to be taken.
I will answer first the question that Iain Gray should have asked about Diageo's contribution. I believe it to be fundamental—[Interruption.] The issue is important for communities in Port Dundas and Kilmarnock; perhaps Labour members might choose to remember that. Diageo as a company has been focused on what it can save in terms of costs and what it can maximise in terms of profits. I believe that until lately there has been little or no focus on the social consequences of its economic decision making. Part of the remedial action that must be taken by the task force, Government and the public agencies is to focus the company's mind on the fact that it cannot just walk away from communities and that there is a social cost, which is estimated in Kilmarnock alone to be £14 million a year, although the personal impact is much greater for many families. The Parliament should unite in insisting that companies remember their social obligations as well as pursuing the bottom line in profits. That is a reasonable position.
This Government's primary objective is to increase sustainable growth in Scotland. We believe that constitutional change and economic and financial powers are imperative to be able to do that. Iain Gray is happy to remain a Westminster lapdog on the apron strings of a financial settlement. This Parliament and this Government will have to tackle not only the decision making of private companies but the impact of a public sector recession in Scotland, provoked by the spending policies of the Westminster Government. That is why the desire and necessity for constitutional change embraces not only the Scottish National Party and its Government but is the consensus of a large number of people across Scotland.
My question is exactly about how important jobs and the economy are right now, and not only at Diageo in Kilmarnock. A hundred jobs have gone at Alexander Dennis in Falkirk; 350 have gone at Carillion in Tannochside; 300 have gone at T-Mobile in Larbert; 300 have gone at JVC in East Kilbride; 700 have gone at Hewlett-Packard in Erskine; and, of course, 500 jobs are at risk at Bausch and Lomb in Livingston. That has all happened since April, since the civil servants have been spending their time talking about the national conversation.
Briefly, please.
All those workers require all our attention and they need their Government's full attention, too. They do not need—on taxpayers' time and money—a campaign for separation that no one wants.
Question, please.
Will the First Minister make his rigged referendum bill redundant now, close down his national conversation and get on with his real job? Then we can all unite behind that effort.
I repeat my call for brevity.
I am inspired by that call for unity after the most jumbled question I have ever heard in this Parliament.
Let us talk about the job losses in Scotland. Iain Gray must accept that some responsibility for the recession that we are going through lies with the United Kingdom Government. I could go through the interventions that the Scottish Government has made in Rosyth, in Cumbernauld, in Campbeltown and, most recently, in Glasgow to sustain and enhance employment in Scotland. Those interventions have been very significant indeed, but they have been made against the background of the greatest recession in living memory. At some point, Iain Gray might accept some responsibility for what his political party has done to the state of the UK economy.
As far as the civil service is concerned, is Iain Gray actually suggesting that we should have a civil service in Scotland that does not pay attention to the Government's policies? Is he actually suggesting that the civil service should be trying to impede or obstruct or not follow the Government's policies? The essence of a democracy is that once a Government is elected, the civil service attempts to implement and give advice on the policies of that Government. If Iain Gray ever gets into government, that will be the situation.
Finally, I noticed the interview in The Scotsman on Monday, which had the headline, "Scots still don't know who I am, admits Gray". Has he ever wondered whether the problem might be that Scots know who he is, not that they do not know who he is?
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1851)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.
The First Minister should be aware that every 90 seconds, a pupil is excluded from Scotland's schools and that, according to the Government's own figures, 85 per cent of excluded pupils are sent home with nothing to do. That is a disgrace and an inexcusable waste of resource.
On 17 March 2005, when the SNP was in opposition and was demanding everything left, right and centre, Fiona Hyslop, the current Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, said:
"If we regard indiscipline as a serious issue, it is important that regular statistics be produced so that there can be accountability. The production of statistics every three years is not good enough."—[Official Report, 17 March 2005; c 15444.]
Hear, hear! The Conservatives agree and so do 84 per cent of Scots, who in a recent poll said that they wanted the figures to be published every year. Will the First Minister support his education secretary and publish those figures annually, or—to quote Ms Hyslop again—
"What does the First Minister have to hide?"—[Official Report, 20 January 2005; c 13733.]
I agree with Annabel Goldie that disruption in school is an extremely serious issue and that the number of exclusions in Scotland is far too high. However, she must know that the number of exclusions is published annually. The most recent figures show that it fell by 11 per cent in 2007-08. She will also be interested to know that the wider survey on discipline in schools will be published shortly. It is therefore not the case that we do not have a handle on what is happening as regards the important issue of dealing with disruptive pupils in Scotland.
I was very interested in a Conservative party proposal that I saw ventilated in the papers earlier this week. It may well be that more initiatives are required, but Annabel Goldie should accept that a range of initiatives are under way to deal with that serious problem in Scottish education, and although the number of exclusions is far too high, she should acknowledge that 11 per cent fall in 2007-08.
What the First Minister has failed to make clear is that the Government does not publish statistics on incidents in classrooms, and that is what is worrying teachers, parents and well-conducted pupils throughout our schools. We need to take persistently disruptive pupils out of mainstream education and place them in second- chance centres. That is what the Scottish Conservatives would do. The Scottish National Party Government says that such facilities already exist. Will the First Minister therefore publish figures to show whether those facilities are working, or is that something else that he wants to hide?
The First Minister has recently been found wanting on the international and domestic stages. It is sad that his hapless education team has clearly been found wanting as well. There is no mention of discipline in the SNP's programme for government. Why not?
I thought that Annabel Goldie was doing rather well on a serious subject until she wandered over her general criticisms of the Government. I take it from her condemnation of the Government's behaviour that she will not vote SNP at the next election.
Let us get back to the serious issue under consideration. I will see whether I can help Annabel Goldie with the statistics. There are 193 local authority special schools in Scotland, 19 of which are specifically for pupils with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. Some 206 services are networked by the Scottish Government's pupil inclusion network to provide support for pupils who are excluded or are at risk of exclusion from schools. In addition, in the colleges there is a £30 million package of partnership activity that offers flexible learning packages to keep pupils positively engaged.
A range of initiatives is under way in Scottish education. It would be too easy to say that the 11 per cent reduction in exclusions in 2007-08 is to do with that range of initiatives, but in pursuing another initiative, as she did earlier this week, Annabel Goldie should not forget or diminish in any way the body of work that is going on to tackle such a serious problem in Scottish education.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1859)
At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
There was a warning this morning that the United Kingdom may face a double-dip recession. That means that Scotland faces further serious job losses. Unemployment in Scotland is already rising faster than it is in the rest of the country. Diageo is a catastrophic hit on the people of Kilmarnock and Port Dundas, and the Government will have to pick up the pieces. What are the First Minister's tactics for dealing with future job losses? Does he think that the vital part of the Government's approach is to be consistent for local people, their communities and employees who face the loss of their livelihood?
The Government is pursuing a range of initiatives.
I thank Tavish Scott for the constructive comments on the Diageo task force that he made yesterday. He recognised that it was a cross-party, cross-agency workforce in which everybody worked as hard as they possibly could to try to find an alternative to the Diageo proposals.
I defend Government intervention for the public purpose. Tavish Scott recognises, as I do, the difficulties that arise from the recession: rising unemployment and job losses. I believe that there will be more disappointments to come, but in recent times there have been a number of substantial successes in Scotland, perhaps against expectations. The Rosyth ferry is back working against many people's expectations, and 800 jobs were saved in Cumbernauld against many people's expectations. The Campbeltown tower facility for offshore and onshore wind has every prospect of increasing employment. Tavish Scott will have noticed the recent £5 million investment—I describe it as an investment and regional selective assistance—to ensure 800 new financial sector jobs in the city of Glasgow in Tesco Personal Finance. All those initiatives are supported by the public purpose. I will defend absolutely Government intervention to increase jobs and employment in Scotland.
I would, too, and I agree with those points, but does the First Minister recognise the importance of explaining the quantum leap in the offer to Diageo compared to what has been offered in other parts of Scotland? As he said, for Diageo he led a protest march, there has been a Government task force and a significant financial offer was made. Banking jobs have gone in Edinburgh, Fife and further afield. What have the Government's tactics and approach been to them? In Hawick, Lochcarron of Scotland, Pringle and Hawick Knitwear have shed jobs—1,000 jobs have been shed across the Borders in the past year. A ministerial visit was made, but there was no task force or Government money. In the First Minister's area, what was his approach to the grievous loss of the Inverurie paper mill? Companies, workers and their communities need to know what to expect from the Government. Is the First Minister offering every company Government money to keep jobs here? How will he be fair to all workers in different parts of the country who face the sack in this difficult recession?
Let us identify the offer to Diageo. In addition to the BDO Stoy Hayward report that was commissioned by Scottish Enterprise to close the financial gap that it identified in its proposal—a gap of £6 million a year, which Diageo accepted as an estimate—there were three things on offer. The first was a change in working practices, which was agreed by the Scottish Manufacturing Advisory Service and supported by the trade unions. The second was an offer, led by East Ayrshire Council, regarding the remedial costs of the Hill Street site in Kilmarnock—particularly the proposal of perhaps putting the new Kilmarnock college on that site and helping with the remedial costs. The third was the identification by Scottish Enterprise of a suitable serviced greenfield site on the outskirts of Kilmarnock. Those are the sort of initiatives that are being offered to a range of companies that face closure.
I have already listed for Tavish Scott a range of examples of public interventions that have been substantially successful in saving jobs throughout Scotland. We must, however, acknowledge that although we make the effort in every significant case in the country, sometimes—many times, perhaps—despite the efforts of the Government and others, an initiative will not be successful. I would rather be in a Government and leading a country that made the effort to save jobs and employment than leading one that said, "There's nothing we can do" and fatalistically accepted the consequences. In every redundancy situation, the Government will do its level best to protect growth, jobs and livelihoods across the nation.
I am disappointed that, despite my gentle plea for brevity, First Minister's question time has so far taken 22 minutes—longer than ever before. I am, therefore, going to instigate discussions with all relevant parties to see how I can best protect the ability of back benchers to have an input to the questions. I am now unable to invite any supplementary questions from some important back benchers.
Scottish Government Budget
To ask the First Minister what reduction is expected in the Scottish Government's budget as a result of the United Kingdom Government's budget plans. (S3F-1866)
The UK budget included a reduction of £496 million in our spending plans for 2010-11. Based on the analysis of that budget, every credible forecaster is now predicting substantial reductions in available public spending over the medium term. In Scotland, a report by the centre for public policy for regions, which was published last month, suggested that, very soon, public spending in Scotland will be substantially below—over the medium term, in real terms, up to 11 per cent below—what we have expected over the past few years. We will shortly publish, in our draft Scottish budget for 2010-11, proposals that, despite the chancellor's cuts, seek to protect the programmes that matter most to and are the priorities of the people of Scotland.
Does the First Minister agree that it is deeply disingenuous of Labour MSPs continuously to demand extra spending in a range of areas while the Labour chancellor in London is making it clear that he will cut budgets further? Peter Mandelson has admitted that UK Governments will be cutting budgets for the next 10 years. Has the Scottish Government been given any indication of future budget cuts for Scotland? Will the First Minister join me in urging all parties to accept that budget cuts are coming from Westminster and to support the Scottish Government in its work to protect services?
Understandably, perhaps, with an election in the offing, both the Westminster Government and the Conservative Opposition have been coy about their spending plans over the medium term. That is why the best advice that we have is provided by key forecasters such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and, in Scotland, the centre for public policy for regions. I said a few seconds ago that the CPPR has forecast a reduction in public spending of 11 per cent. That is the top of the range that it has forecast; its median forecast is that the Scottish budget figure could be 8.5 per cent lower—that is, £2.5 billion lower in real terms—than it was in 2009-10 by the year 2013-14. That is an extraordinarily serious position.
I see some looks of disquiet among Labour members. Let us remember that that forecast was produced by a former Labour Party economist, John McLaren. Whether John McLaren is right or other forecasters are right, what the Westminster Government and the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament are doing is being virtually silent on the medium-term implications of budget cuts in Scotland. This Government and this Parliament should not be silent; they should broadcast that message to the Scottish people so that informed choices can be made on the future constitutional direction of this country.
It would be nice if we could focus on the facts and not on the fictional forecasts. As an economist, the First Minister should know that most long-term forecasts prove to be incredibly ill placed.
Let us do what we should do in this chamber and look at the budgets that we have before us. Does the First Minister agree with his director general of finance and corporate services that the Scottish budget for 2010-11 is increasing in real terms by 1.3 per cent? Those are her words, not mine. Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish economy benefited from the more than £50 billion of United Kingdom Government intervention to save our banks and address economic issues in Scotland? Most important, does the First Minister agree with his civil servants' worrying plans for a 5 per cent cut in the budget of every Government department? That is what is being planned here and now by the First Minister.
The last time that I looked at the equity investment by the UK Government in the financial sector, I thought that it was recording a profit on the original investment. Perhaps Andy Kerr has different information.
Just a few months ago, Andy Kerr was trying to deny that there was a £500 million reduction in the Scottish budget over the previous figures. I see that he is indicating that he is still denying it. In that case, I am sure that, when Mr Swinney shortly announces the full budget implications for 2010-11, even Andy Kerr will have to face the reality of a Labour budget cut of £500 million. Perhaps he will use the legendary iron discipline that he holds over his back benchers to remind them of that fact every time one of them gets up and asks for more public spending on every issue under the sun. Remember the £500 million cut coming from Westminster.
Floods (Government Assistance)
To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has put in place to assist local authorities dealing with flooding incidents such as those experienced last week. (S3F-1854)
Last Friday, many communities, mainly in Grampian and Tayside, woke up to some of the worst flooding in the area for many years—in some cases, for 80 years to a century. The disruption that was caused by such flooding—both in north-east Scotland and more recently in Argyll—is, of course, considerable and our immediate focus is on those most affected.
Council and emergency services personnel in the affected areas have been working flat out to protect communities, and I know that the chamber will join me acknowledging their efforts.
On Monday, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment visited the affected areas in Moray and, on 4 September, the Minister for Environment held a conference of agencies involved in the strategic co-ordinating group. River levels peaked in north-east Scotland on Friday afternoon and dropped further over the weekend.
Yesterday, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change visited the site of the landslide at the Rest and Be Thankful on the A83. Extraordinary efforts have been made to shift thousands of tonnes of debris from the A83, and I am delighted to say that, following a site assessment, the safety of the road has been assured and it has been cleared for reopening at 3 pm today.
I welcome the excellent efforts that have been made by our rescue services to deal with the immediate aftermath of the dreadful flooding problems that we had last week.
Residents in those areas worry about the need for effective long-term flood defences. Will the First Minister agree to re-examine the issue of investment in flood schemes? When I warned that schemes would be hit when the national contribution of 80 per cent for schemes was removed, SNP ministers accused me of scaremongering. However, Edinburgh is now £22 million short, and Moray Council, whose residents were badly hit last week, is now £27 million short.
This Parliament fixed the process of flood scheme approvals, and it is now 10 years since Edinburgh experienced devastating flooding. The council has the tender bids in, but it will have to go back to the drawing board. The process will cost more, it will take longer and it will give people years more worry. Will the First Minister act to fix the funding shortfall to enable the desperately needed schemes in those areas, and in others, to go ahead?
As Sarah Boyack knows, the funding for flooding was put into the record local government settlement, rising as a percentage of total expenditure in Scotland. She moved quickly over the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 that was passed earlier this year. That act is, of course, designed to help prevent the delays that have beset many of the remedial flooding schemes across Scotland, including those in Moray. I would have thought that that act illustrates action by the Parliament and certainly by the Government.
It is unwise to banter about politics on this issue. I have seen a number of quotations from Moray Council, and I will take one—it is not from a Scottish National Party councillor, but from a Conservative councillor, Allan Wright, who said:
"People are quite justified in thinking, you know, why can't the council just say, we're going to do this and get ahead and do it. Well, I am afraid that the Scottish Executive as it was then three years ago, did not allow that."
He was talking about the council's inability, because of the legislative situation, to proceed quickly with that particular measure. That is exactly why we introduced—and the Parliament passed—the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, which will help the situation in the future.
I am sorry, but for the first time in my role as Presiding Officer we are unable to get to question 6. That concludes questions to the First Minister.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—