Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03116)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The Forth road bridge is more than just a road connecting Fife and Edinburgh; it is a strategic asset that is at the heart of the transport infrastructure for the whole country. Thousands of people rely on it to get to and from their work every day and businesses depend on it for getting their goods and services to their customers. I know of a shellfish firm in the Highlands that is worried about the impact of the bridge closure on business, and of a construction firm based in Fife that is thousands of pounds out of pocket because it is paying for staff to be put up in hotels in other parts of the country because it has deadlines to meet.
This morning, one business leader told me that the top priority was ensuring that small businesses can travel freely. On Tuesday, Derek Mackay agreed to authorise small vans to travel along the priority route, which is currently restricted to buses and heavy goods vehicles. Can the First Minister confirm when that change will take place?
First, I take this opportunity to again thank the public for their patience and forbearance during what I know is a period of significant disruption for many individuals and businesses. I also take this opportunity to thank a wide range of staff who are right now working around the clock to deal with this issue. I also restate my absolute determination and that of the Government to do everything that we can to minimise disruption and, even more importantly, get the Forth road bridge open again as quickly as possible.
On the point that Kezia Dugdale raised, a number of sources have raised issues with regard to how we can further improve the travel plan that is in place. Some of those proposals have already been implemented—for example, on the priority route that was put in place for buses and heavy goods vehicles, that priority has been lifted during the night-time period. We are currently considering a range of other proposals, including the light goods vehicle proposals that Kezia Dugdale spoke about.
I am sure that members will appreciate that we are trying to take all possible action to minimise the disruption that is caused, as far as possible. With regard to the priority route, in particular, we must take care that we get the balance right between sensible restrictions and not doing things that would deprioritise that route.
We are continuing to look at what flexibilities we can put in place and, as we have done since the weekend, we will continue to keep the public fully updated.
I accept that answer in its entirety, but the First Minister misses the fact that this was a promise that the Minister for Transport and Islands made on Tuesday to small businesses that has not yet been realised. Those small businesses are losing business every day. When the First Minister says that she needs to focus on minimising disruption, she has to fulfil that promise and act urgently. I ask her to ensure that the measure is put in place at the earliest opportunity, because we need more than short-term sticking-plaster solutions. If this situation has shown us anything, it is that we need a Government that does not put off essential work in the hope of saving money.
A new bridge is coming, and we supported that. The Government is working hard to mitigate emergency transport problems, and we support that too. However, for the First Minister to try to sweep everything under the carpet just will not wash.
We know that the bridge maintenance contract has been privatised by her Government, and that budgets have been slashed, also by her Government. We know that the budget for the bridge was cut by 65 per cent—Audit Scotland told us that. That is a cut to the maintenance budget of an ageing but essential asset. Given what has now happened, and with the benefit of hindsight, does the First Minister now accept that those budget cuts were wrong?
No, I do not. [Interruption.]
Order.
I think that the public deserve a proper and full explanation of the situation. Just to complete the point that Kezia Dugdale raised in her first question, we will continue to consider any suggestions that are made about how we can improve the travel planning and will implement any changes as quickly as possible. I simply make the point that we must ensure that, in opening up the priority route to more vehicles, we do not create a situation in which it ceases to be a priority transport route for the vehicles that we initially designated it for.
Let me turn to the other issues. The specific part of the bridge that is being repaired now was not broken back in 2010; the work that was considered in 2010 was prompted by concern about another part of the truss end link, not the part that is now cracked. The work that was considered in 2010 would have been a more extensive repair than was required, and it would have completely closed the bridge for a number of weeks. That is why the Forth Estuary Transport Authority—not the Scottish Government—which was made up of councillors from all parties, decided to do further analysis and proposed a more proportionate repair. That more proportionate repair was under way when the current defect was identified.
Let us look at the figures for 2010-11, which is the year in which we are being accused of underfunding maintenance. The grant that was provided to FETA was greater in that year than in any of the previous three years. Kezia Dugdale started her last question by saying that this Government somehow wanted to save money. Let me remind the chamber and the public that this is the Government that decided to invest in a new Forth replacement crossing. That is hardly the hallmark of a Government that was trying to save money.
What was Labour’s position on building a new Forth replacement crossing? James Kelly, Labour’s infrastructure spokesperson at the time—the person who was jumping up and down in the chamber yesterday, complaining that we had not fixed a crack five years before the crack appeared—said of the new Forth replacement crossing:
“from the start this has been a vanity project for the Scottish Government.”
It was those on the Labour benches, not the Scottish Government, who wanted to save money on making sure that people could continue to travel across the Forth.
People need to know that they have a Government that is prepared to learn the lessons of the past rather than one that is more interested in covering its tracks and blaming someone else. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.
On Tuesday, the transport minister, Derek Mackay, told the Parliament that there was no link between cancelled repairs in 2010 and the work that is needed now. On Wednesday, he made the fatal mistake of going on the radio and telling the truth—that they were linked. The public is rapidly losing faith in the transport minister’s handling of the situation. We know that vital maintenance work that would have repaired the damaged area was put off five years ago. Can the First Minister confirm what other works on the bridge have been cancelled or delayed because of a lack of funding?
Kezia Dugdale can go to the Forth Estuary Transport Authority’s website and see its published minutes. That body took decisions about the prioritisation of works on the Forth road bridge entirely independently of the Scottish Government. Before we took over the grant funding, our role was to fund that maintenance programme.
It would have been helpful if Kezia Dugdale had listened to the last answer that I gave her. The specific part of the bridge that is being repaired now was not broken in 2010. [Interruption.]
Order.
According to engineers, the fault that is currently being repaired on the Forth road bridge occurred within the past few weeks. That is the reality of the situation. We are now working—as the public have a right to expect us to do—to repair that fault and get the bridge open again as quickly as possible.
It is rich of Labour to come to the chamber and talk about the Government’s commitment to keeping people travelling across the Forth bridge. I have quoted what James Kelly said when he was infrastructure spokesperson for the Labour Party. Perhaps Kezia Dugdale would also be interested in the views of her former employer and a former member of the Parliament, Lord George Foulkes. He said—[Interruption.]
Order.
Lord Foulkes said that the new Forth replacement crossing—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
Labour does not want to hear this, because Lord Foulkes referred to
“prestige projects, such as the Forth replacement crossing, which is a total waste of money”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 23 February 2011; c 2584.]
That is what he said.
I will continue to ensure that I, the transport minister and the Government concentrate on minimising the disruption that people are suffering right now, getting the bridge reopened as quickly as possible and making sure that the new bridge that this Government took the decision to build gets completed on time, so that, at this time next year, that new bridge is also open to traffic.
I am sure that the hundreds of people who were on the 7.10 from Cowdenbeath valued that answer and thought that the First Minister was on their side.
The First Minister encouraged me to look at the FETA website. I have done that. In fact, I have in my hand the minutes from the October 2013 meeting, which state:
“The Scottish Government's September 2011 Spending Review resulted in a 58% reduction in the Authority's capital funding and, as a result, a number of capital projects have had to be deferred to beyond 2015.”
The minutes go on to say:
“That deferral of part or all of these projects does increase the risk to the long term structural integrity of the bridge.”
Crucially, the truss end link work was one of the projects that were delayed. Key projects were delayed because of SNP Government cuts—short-term decisions that were made at the expense of the long-term future of an important national asset.
We have budgets cut, the privatisation of services and cancelled repairs. Instead of constantly trying to avoid the blame, when will the Government accept some responsibility?
Let me repeat the position again. The work that was being considered in 2010 was prompted by concern about another part of the truss end link, not the part that has cracked. The Opposition criticism—[Interruption.]
Order.
Members might want to listen to this. The Opposition criticism of the Scottish Government appears to be that, five years ago, a body that took decisions independently of the Scottish Government decided not to fix a part of the bridge that was not broken. That part of the bridge broke only in the past few weeks. We might not have had a crystal ball to tell us five years ago that something would break five years in the future, but—[Interruption.]
Order.
—we had the foresight to know that an ageing structure needed to be replaced. Therefore, this Government took the decision to build a new Forth replacement crossing. There is little doubt that that decision would not have been taken had Labour been in government.
What people in Fife and those affected by the closure want to hear from me today is this: the Government is absolutely focused on continuing to do what we have been doing since last Thursday night, which is minimising—[Interruption.]
Order!
—as far as possible the disruption that the disclosure is causing and, even more important, supporting those who are working right now around the clock to get the bridge reopened. That is what I will continue to focus on; that is what this Government will continue to focus on.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-03111)
Monday.
We should probably take the temperature down a notch. The priority clearly must be to ensure that the Forth road bridge is fixed as soon as possible and that the problems are addressed in full. However, the First Minister cannot avoid the fact that the budget for the Forth road bridge has been hammered in recent years.
Two weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a significant increase in capital expenditure for Scotland—the money is there. Will the First Minister make it clear today that when the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy unveils his budget next week, cuts to the bridge budget will be reversed, and that the Forth road bridge has every penny available to guarantee that it stays open for as long as we need it to?
The Deputy First Minister will set out the budget to the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday next week and members will have an opportunity to scrutinise the decisions that the Government has made, on Wednesday and as we go through the budget process.
I make it absolutely clear that our entire focus is on ensuring that the people who are working to repair the bridge have all the resources that are needed to repair it. We will not only ensure that we continue to fund repairs and maintenance on the bridge—as we have done—so that it stays open, but will ensure that we continue to fund the new bridge that is being built, so that, this time next year, we will celebrate its opening to new traffic. That is the Government’s priority and we will continue to focus on it 100 per cent.
It is clear that the authorities gambled that the old bridge could be patched up until the new one was opened. Now we know that that gamble failed. In press reports this week, senior civil engineers have said that the bridge may not open to heavy goods vehicles and that the timetable for repair is unrealistic. This morning, Amey announced that preventative action is being taken on seven new sites. I hope that the Government is right and that the bridge will reopen in early January, but on behalf of all commuters and businesses, I ask the First Minister to guarantee that, when the bridge reopens, it will open to all vehicles.
The Government’s absolute intention is to have the bridge open for people returning to work in the new year and for it to be open as normal to all vehicles that previously travelled over it. That is what we have said all along and it is what we continue to say.
Everybody in the chamber will understand and—I hope—appreciate that, especially at this time of year, work to a structure such as the Forth road bridge is heavily weather dependent. I last spoke to the senior Amey engineer yesterday, and the update that I was given was that the repairs remain on track. We are monitoring the situation closely and talking to the engineers daily to ensure that we continue to be fully updated. Any changes to our expectations on the timescale for the repair will be fully communicated to the public in the normal way. At this moment, I remain of the view that the bridge will reopen in time for people returning to work in the new year.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03117)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
Everything that we have heard today and over the past week about the various issues to do with privatisation and capital cuts, the two senior engineers leaving and the Minister for Transport and Islands not being able adequately to explain the abandoned repair really makes the point that we need a thorough inquiry. That is what people in Fife expect and it is what the First Minister should actively support.
For today, people care most about sorting out the travel arrangements, fixing the bridge and preventing such a situation from happening again. To be frank, the bridge is struggling to cope, so what has the First Minister changed this week in the maintenance and inspection regime to minimise the chance of another major failure on that major transport artery for Scotland?
I spoke to engineers who are working on the bridge when I visited the traffic control centre at Queensferry on Tuesday morning. As we would expect of them, the engineers are taking the opportunity of the current work on the bridge to check other parts of it, as is appropriate. There is a very large number of parts to the bridge, all of which have their own inspection and maintenance regimes. The part of the bridge that, according to advice that we have had from engineers, cracked in the past few weeks has a regular maintenance cycle attached to it.
First, we will continue to ensure that we minimise the disruption that people are suffering now. To go back to a point that I made earlier, that means that we will continue to listen to representations about how we adapt the travel plan that is in place. Secondly, we will support those who are working to repair the bridge so that the repair is carried out on time and the bridge reopens to all traffic at the start of the new year. We will also continue to ensure that proper maintenance on the bridge is in place, and that all critical repairs are funded and take place. Lastly—as I have said repeatedly—we will continue to focus on getting the new bridge completed on time and on budget and open to traffic by this time next year.
The bridge is under considerable strain, as everybody in the chamber knows, and with this happening within the past few weeks, the First Minister cannot be content just to carry on with the old engineering regime. We must have something new, something improved or something different to make the system much more robust. As the First Minister will have seen, the chaos in Fife has been quite dramatic, and we cannot afford a repeat of it, so what new things is she going to do? What improvement in the inspection regime is she going to order, given that we cannot afford this happening again?
As with the Forth Estuary Transport Authority before it, Amey has in place a robust inspection regime, which aligns with all industry standards. As I have said, Amey is taking the opportunity of the work that is being carried out right now to do a health check on the bridge, and if any repairs need to be done it will take the opportunity to do those, as well.
I would have thought that Willie Rennie would agree that what we are, and should be, focusing on right now are the things that I have mentioned: minimising disruption to the travelling public, minimising disruption to businesses that are affected by the closure, and making sure that all steps are being taken to repair the affected part of the bridge as quickly as possible so that the bridge reopens to traffic as soon as possible. Those are the things that we will focus on. That is my responsibility and it is the responsibility of this Government to make sure that we take all those steps.
As far as an inquiry is concerned, I will say what the transport minister said previously: it is open to any committee of Parliament to carry out an inquiry into anything it chooses to inquire into. If a committee chooses to carry out an inquiry of the kind that has been suggested, the Government will obviously co-operate fully with it. [Interruption.]
Order.
Members on one side of the chamber appear to be more interested in playing political games; our focus is on ensuring that we act in the best interests of people who are affected by the closure, that we minimise disruption and that we get the bridge reopened. That will be my focus and the focus of this Government, and we will not be diverted from it.
Fiscal Framework
To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the fiscal framework. (S4F-03123)
The Deputy First Minister met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday. That was the fifth meeting since the publication of the Smith commission report, and it continued detailed discussions on the substantive elements of the fiscal framework that will underpin the financial provisions of the Scotland Bill. In particular, the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury discussed options for adjusting the Scottish Government’s block grant funding as a result of new powers over tax and spending.
The First Minister will be aware that Lord Smith has stated that the fiscal framework is
“fundamentally important to making Scotland’s new powers work”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 2015; Vol 767, c 593.]
while Professor Anton Muscatelli has warned that the method of adjusting the block grant
“matters greatly for Scotland’s economic future”
and could see Scotland’s budget falling by £7 billion over the next decade.
Given the importance of the fiscal framework and the serious implications that it will have, does the First Minister agree that it is vital that the Parliament speaks with one voice to protect Scotland’s future budgets and public services against the clear and present danger that is now posed by the UK Treasury?
When credible independent voices ranging from the Institute for Fiscal Studies to the principal of the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Trades Union Congress all raise serious concerns, all members of this chamber really should take note. Professor Muscatelli has put the risk to our budget that is posed by what is known as levels deductions as the means of assessing our block grant adjustment at a mammoth £7 billion over 10 years. That would be simply unacceptable.
I hope that all members of all parties can agree that such a proposal could not conceivably be accepted by this Government. That is why we continue to negotiate in good faith for a reasonable agreement that is in the interests of people in Scotland.
I welcome the First Minister’s commitment to stay at the negotiating table. She will, of course, be aware that the Scottish Government has borrowing powers of £304 million this year. Given that there are only three months left in the financial year, can she tell us whether the borrowing is likely to be through the national loans fund, through the banks on commercial terms, or through the issuing of bonds?
We make operational decisions on those issues during the year and, of course, John Swinney will set out his budget for 2016-17 when he comes to the chamber next week.
I hope that Jackie Baillie will join her colleague Malcolm Chisholm in expressing support for the Scottish Government’s position over the fiscal framework negotiations. I welcomed the comments that he made yesterday, accepting that what the Scottish Government is arguing for would be
“the best and most risk-free option for Scotland”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2015; c 11.]
I hope that Jackie Baillie could find it within herself to support that position, too.
The method for calculating VAT will be critical to the fiscal framework. Is the First Minister’s position that VAT should be calculated according to the place of production or the place of consumption?
That is one of the many issues that are under discussion. Whether the issue is how we calculate VAT, how we calculate over the years to come the deduction from Scotland’s block grant or how we take account of set-up costs, we are arguing for a settlement that is not somehow unfairly advantageous to Scotland, but is fair and reasonable to Scotland.
We will continue to argue for that position across a range of issues, and I hope that we get to a position where the Scottish Government and the UK Government can agree a deal that allows the new powers to come into effect so that the Scottish Government can get on with using them.
Climate Change
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that there is a gap between its position on climate change and its policy on air passenger duty. (S4F-03113)
No, but we take those issues very seriously. [Interruption.]
Order.
That is why international aviation and shipping are in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which both Malcolm Chisholm and I voted for. We encourage other Governments to include shipping and aviation in their own climate change acts.
It is important that we continue to take a balanced approach. Scotland is already punching above our weight in the international effort to tackle climate change, and we are on track to meet our 42 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020. Indeed, the latest climate group report, which I helped to launch at the Paris climate talks this week, shows that Scotland has one of the largest drops in emissions of 44 leading regions and states that champion action on climate change.
Equally, I recognise that there are important environmental as well as economic issues when we consider a reduction in air passenger duty, which is why we are working with environmental groups among others in developing our legislative proposals.
I welcome what the First Minister said about climate change in Paris and I am glad that she went there by train. However, in this week of all weeks, will she reconsider her proposal to slash air passenger duty? Does she not realise that the Scottish Government’s research indicates that that would result in hundreds of thousands more journeys by plane instead of train; that the majority of those extra journeys would be in the United Kingdom, which nullifies the argument that she used last week about exports; and that the result would be a big boost to aviation emissions, which are already growing faster than the emissions of any other sector?
We will continue to take a balanced approach that prioritises economic growth and takes very seriously our commitments and responsibilities to the environment. As I said when I was in Paris on Monday, there is recognition among a wide range of other countries not that Scotland’s record is somehow flawless or perfect but that Scotland is showing international leadership. We should all be proud of that, and it suggests that the Scottish Government should continue to take the balanced approach that we have taken.
Domestic Abuse
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s plans are to tackle domestic abuse. (S4F-03121)
Domestic abuse is completely unacceptable and we must eradicate it from our homes and communities. We are strengthening the law in the area and taking action through record levels of funding. We have committed almost £12 million this year and a further £20 million over three years to support a range of projects to tackle violence against women.
Through the equally safe strategy, our aim is to prevent and eradicate all violence against women and girls in Scotland. The joint strategic board that has been set up under that strategy consists of senior leaders from the public and third sectors with specialist knowledge of domestic abuse issues, and it is working hand in hand with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can achieve that aim.
The consultation on the potential for a specific domestic abuse offence closed in June, and an analysis of the response was published in October. Recently, the Scottish Women’s Aid charity estimated that there are 25,000 new cases of domestic abuse a year. The Scottish social attitudes survey on attitudes to violence against women that was published in November found that there were notable differences in the perception of what was considered to be “very seriously wrong” behaviour towards women, depending on the circumstances. Can the First Minister comment on those survey findings and provide an update on the position on potential legislation?
Yes, I can, but I would first like to pay tribute to the work of the Women’s Aid movement and all that it does to support women and children who are at risk of and experiencing domestic abuse. We have much to do to end the scourge of domestic abuse and to change the negative attitudes that drive it.
The social attitudes survey that Rod Campbell mentioned makes for really grim reading on some of the attitudes that still exist today in our society. That said, it also provides a helpful baseline that will in future allow us to evidence the changes that we want to make to realise our ambition of eradicating violence against women. As I said, we are working with stakeholders through the equally safe strategy to bring renewed focus in the area.
We are making progress on the changes to the law. A draft domestic abuse offence was published on 30 November, and initial feedback on that from members of the equally safe justice expert group has been positive. Following further work, a full formal consultation on the draft offence is due to be published by the end of the year.
Previous
General Question Time