Engagements
Later today, I will make an announcement with one of the world’s leading online companies, Amazon, which intends to create 950 new full-time jobs in Scotland at two locations—in Dunfermline and Gourock. I know that all members will want to welcome such a positive boost for the Scottish economy in this new year.
We always welcome new jobs in Scotland.
As Kenny MacAskill said yesterday, change is inevitable. The status quo is not an option. Kenny MacAskill has set out the Government’s position on the police and the fire service and we have been closely examining the arguments. If we are going to make the greatest change in policing in Scotland for more than a generation, examination of the arguments and an attempt to build consensus seem to me to be particularly important.
Presiding Officer, “This is daft stuff.” [Interruption.]
Order.
Presiding Officer,
I am delighted that Iain Gray has given me the opportunity to remind a wider audience of the reason for my talking about being
I know what Councillor Eric Milligan thinks on the issue and what Tricia Marwick MSP thinks on it, too. She, too, is against a single police force. However, I simply do not know what the First Minister thinks.
As the arguments have been examined, it has become clear that the option of a single police force offers significant savings, which are essential given the mess that the Labour Party made of the economy and the consequent pressure on public finance. Unlike the Labour Party, we stood on a manifesto commitment to have 1,000 extra police on the streets of Scotland, and we have delivered that commitment. Under the public spending pressures from the coalition Government, we know that change is necessary to maintain front-line policing. As the issue is examined, the single police force offers a substantial opportunity for efficiencies that will help on the front line.
I still do not know what the First Minister thinks. Yes, it is a serious issue—that is why it demands leadership. We can all see how painful it is for the First Minister to sit on this fence. Dither, delay and dodging decisions: that is the First Minister’s modus operandi, and he is a serial offender. On public sector reform, a commission is to report—after the election. On higher education, there is to be a Scottish solution—after the election. On climate change targets, there is to be no action until after the election. On police and fire services, there is to be a consultation—which is to conclude after the election. Has the First Minister just given up on governing at all?
The council tax freeze is being delivered in Scotland now. The ending of prescription charges is being delivered in Scotland now. A thousand extra police on the streets is being delivered in Scotland now. We have an Administration that has maintained and kept 90 per cent of its manifesto commitments, which is far and away above anything that the Labour Party did. That is 84 out of 94 commitments.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
Today, we have more than 1,000 more police officers than we had four years ago. Just before the First Minister indulges in selective amnesia, however, I remind him that that was made possible only because of the Scottish Conservatives. If it had been left to Labour, there would not have been any more police officers at all. If it had been left to the SNP, there would have been 500 fewer.
Yes, I will.
I am delighted by that response. I welcome the First Minister’s apparent clarity and I congratulate him on yet again following a Conservative lead. However, I must take his assurance with a pinch of salt: after all, he tried to break the selfsame commitment four years ago. That was naughty and I had to tweak him back.
When Annabel Goldie was upbraiding me just then I was thinking that matron definitely knows best what I must and must not do.
Cabinet (Meetings)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The Scottish Government has withdrawn all figures to support its assertion in favour of a national police force. Will the First Minister therefore guarantee to publish robust and validated new figures, that show the full cost of setting up a single police force, including costs of a new headquarters, enhanced redundancies and information technology?
That is what we are bringing forward as part of the consultation process that Kenny MacAskill outlined yesterday.
I agree with the First Minister that it is an important debate, but he surely needs to accept that Labour’s police reorganisation in England was cancelled because it was going to cost £500 million. Has he not read the papers on his own Scottish policing board? The Government’s own Improvement Service said that
Clearly, there is a substantial body of opinion in the police force and elsewhere in favour of a single force. Senior police officers such as the chief constable of Strathclyde Police and the deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police would not argue the case unless they believed that a substantial opportunity was to be found in creating a single police force.
Earlier this week, I was contacted by Blairs Ltd of Greenock—a manufacturing company with a great reputation that has operated successfully in my constituency for more than a century—with the bad news that, despite the sacrifices of the workforce and the commitment of management, the economic downturn has forced it to call in the receivers and make 100 employees redundant. There remains a very small window—possibly as little as 48 hours—in which the company can be preserved as a going concern. Alternatively, it faces being broken up, which would be an act of economic vandalism.
Of course, I will arrange for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to contact the constituency member immediately and establish whether a helpful intervention would be possible, as we do—as I am sure Duncan McNeil is aware—in such cases throughout the country. If we can help, we certainly shall intervene to do so.
The First Minister will be aware of the significant job losses that have been announced at the Les Taylor Group of companies, which is based at Mintlaw and Ellon in my region. Last Friday, 164 people lost their jobs, and another 19 were made redundant on Monday this week. That is a significant loss of jobs within the rural economy of Aberdeenshire. What actions will the First Minister and his ministers take to support those who have lost their jobs and minimise the impact on the local economy? Will he ensure that a partnership action for continuing employment team is mobilised to assist?
Yes—a PACE team is being deployed to assist. I am well aware of the company, its background and its history. The company is in my former Westminster constituency. As Alison McInnes knows, Les Taylor himself died tragically last year. Losing somebody of his ability, skill and leadership was a serious blow to the company.
VAT and Fuel Duty Increases
The recent increases in VAT and fuel duty introduced by the United Kingdom Government will generate additional pressures for Scottish businesses, families and public services at a time when Scotland is already facing unprecedented cuts in public spending and economic recovery remains fragile.
Does the First Minister agree that it is a shocking indictment of successive UK Governments that they have imposed the highest fuel duty in Europe on Scottish motorists in order to maximise revenue? Most of Europe’s oil comes from Scotland, but shamefully we have to pay more for it at the pumps than any other nation. The burden of additional UK VAT and fuel duty will make Scottish goods and services less competitive and it will cost jobs by draining £2.4 billion from Scotland into the Treasury’s coffers this year. Will the First Minister therefore engage with the UK Government to seek the restoration of the funds that have been taken by the Treasury from the Scottish block to avoid further cuts in public services, and to seek the establishment of a fuel duty regulator?
Yes I do, and yes I will. It is probably worth explaining the point that the fuel duty regulator does not concern the £10 billion of expected revenue from Scotland’s oil and gas reserves flowing into the Treasury in the coming year. A fuel duty regulator makes the argument that, when there is an oil price increase and an unexpected surge in revenues of £1 billion over and above the £10 billion, some of it should be applied to fuel duty and to regulating and giving stability to the price at these times. We have long argued for that, and the Prime Minister supported it before the election. I would not want to see the Prime Minister making a major commitment and then breaking it by going the same way as the Deputy Prime Minister did on tuition fees.
Pandemic Flu Budget
Jackie Baillie has not done herself any favours in the way she has raised this issue during the past two weeks. As she is well aware, the £10 million was for a flu pandemic. We have a serious flu issue in Scotland at the moment—as, indeed, they have elsewhere in the United Kingdom—but we do not have a pandemic. If the circumstances change in the next year, we will handle them as the health secretary handled things when we did have a pandemic in Scotland.
I associate myself with the First Minister’s comments about the NHS because it has pulled out all the stops to deal with flu. I am sure that the First Minister will also agree that we need to avoid any complacency in dealing with H1N1 flu strains in future years. He will, of course, be aware that flu viruses can mutate, that vaccines might need to be varied, and that vaccine stocks might need to be increased to deal with the situation.
We have a full preparatory contingency to deal with that along with the preparatory budget, which remains in place. As Jackie Baillie is well aware, we are not talking about this year’s budget for seasonal flu preparedness, but about a contingency budget for the purchase of vaccine in the event of a pandemic.
The First Minister will be aware of the calls from some parents for vaccination of all young children against flu—a call that does not, however, have scientific or medical support. Where does the Scottish Government stand on the issue?
We follow the expert advice of the relevant committee, and both health departments north and south of the border follow the same advice. Such judgments are always difficult to make, but in the circumstances, to follow the best medical advice of the committee that has been established to give that advice seems to be the sensible and proper thing to do.
Legal Aid (Court Delays)
The Scottish Legal Aid Board introduced changes on 16 August 2010 that were intended to simplify and modernise the operation of the Scottish legal aid system. Those changes are being closely monitored to ensure that the profession and the wider justice community are fully aware of them and to speed up decisions on legal aid applications.
My concern was raised by reports of the adjournment of criminal cases in sheriff courts across the country. In Wick recently, five out of 18 cases that were called were put off for that reason, which was the subject of judicial comment from the bench. In Glasgow, an adjournment was allegedly caused by the new legal aid procedures, to which the First Minister has referred, requiring more financial documentation before the court. Lawyers are claiming that the changes were introduced without consultation. I accept entirely that people who get criminal legal aid must support their applications properly; however, does the First Minister accept that the net effect on the public purse is going entirely the wrong way if trials are put off at substantial public cost, to say nothing of the frustration and inconvenience that are caused to witnesses? Will he ensure, as a matter of urgency, that the Scottish Legal Aid Board sorts out the difficulties that are causing these costly delays?
Let us look at the cases that Robert Brown raises. Of the cases at Wick sheriff court on 5 January, none related directly to the changes that were introduced last August. Legal aid had been granted in one of the cases, but was refused in two cases because the applicants earned more than the means-tested threshold. Two cases were continued because the applicants earned more than the means-tested threshold and two were continued because a bank statement and other verification of income had not been provided.
When Parliament passed emergency legislation in October, following the Cadder judgment, we were told that it would require 500 additional police officers and would result in an increase in the legal aid budget. What action is the Scottish Court Service taking to ensure that the impact of the new arrangements on legal aid procedures and the legal aid budget is minimised?
All the new arrangements regarding legal aid budgets and procedures are monitored closely. I caution the member that, just as in politics we are always told not to believe everything that we read in the newspapers, Labour members should not necessarily believe the propaganda points that they made during a debate. I assure the member that these matters are all properly considered in terms of both the change in legislation and its consequences for legal aid.