First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00774)
There will be meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
There were fun and games at Leveson yesterday. I am pleased that the First Minister managed to get through the whole day without telling Robert Jay that he was not asking the right questions.
The First Minister said yesterday that the only reason why he backed the Murdoch takeover of British Sky Broadcasting was for Scottish jobs. Can he confirm how many jobs would have come to Scotland if the Murdochs had taken over BSkyB? Will he say what the civil service and Scottish Enterprise assessments were of the deal?
Maybe that was because Robert Jay was asking the right questions yesterday.
The evidence for the impact on jobs and investment in Scotland comes in three parts. First, there is the evidence of James Murdoch—under oath, of course—to the Leveson inquiry on 24 April. I will read Johann Lamont the relevant part:
“I think we have to recall that this merger was about the creation of a pan-European digital television platform with major operations in the United Kingdom, and particularly that meant potentially quite a lot of operations and an increase in operations in Scotland, where technical support, IT, service centres, et cetera, were located for British Sky Broadcasting as an important employer there”.
Secondly, we know—and Johann Lamont knows now—that 36 per cent of BSkyB’s global employment is located in Scotland. At a meeting that I had with Mr Murdoch last year, it was explained that there would be an increase of 150 jobs in Livingston; those jobs were announced on 13 March and 16 May last year.
Thirdly, and crucially, there is the question of the outsourcing jobs. Johann Lamont will have studied my letter to James Murdoch after the meeting last January, when I quoted back the key point that he had conceded, which was that Scotland is a world-class centre for outsourcing. We were in danger last year because of the decision to move from six to two suppliers, which potentially put almost 2,000 jobs at risk in Scotland. Fortunately for Scotland, HEROtsc—with the assistance of Scottish Enterprise—was able to win one of the two contracts and, instead of losing jobs, we gained jobs in Scotland.
Those are the facts of which Johann Lamont was not aware the last time she started asking such questions. Now that she is aware of the facts, will she concede that, whatever politicians elsewhere were doing, jobs and investment for Scotland were the priority for this Government?
First, that compelling case would have been interesting if, when the First Minister was first asked about the matter, he had not dismissed out of hand the fact that he was going to make a call to James Hunt. Secondly, my question was about what assessments the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise had made, not about what James Murdoch told the First Minister or anyone else that the deal would mean.
The fact is that the First Minister did not make the case on jobs. At the Leveson inquiry, Robert Jay QC put forward a compelling case that the First Minister appeared to be lobbying on Rupert Murdoch’s behalf in return for the support of The Sun. The First Minister admitted that he was prepared to lobby—in secret, bizarrely—for Murdoch because a takeover would have been good for Scottish jobs. How many jobs did the Murdochs tell him would be created in Scotland if they had taken over BSkyB—or did they threaten to pull jobs out if he did not back the bid?
James Hunt was an English racing driver. James Murdoch was chairman of BSkyB. James Murdoch is the one who, under oath at the Leveson inquiry, made the commitment and the argument that the digital television platform would have led to an increase in jobs in Scotland.
BSkyB has credibility in Scotland because it has more than 6,000 direct jobs in Scotland—36 per cent of its entire global workforce. Incidentally, the success of HEROtsc—and of Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International in working with it—in winning one of the two outsourcing contracts is not a particularly strong suit for Johann Lamont, given that when she discussed it in April she was totally unaware of its importance, despite the fact that it led to the opening of a new centre in Glasgow.
The people who are aware of the importance of those jobs are the people in Livingston, Dunfermline, Uddingston and Glasgow. They are glad that they have a Government that fights for jobs in Scotland.
Everybody knows that those jobs have nothing to do with the BSkyB takeover. If the First Minister believed that, he might have shared the information that it was about those jobs rather than being prepared to make secret phone calls on behalf of Murdoch.
The First Minister tells us of the importance of BSkyB to Scottish jobs, and he is right. [Interruption.] Indeed, that is a novelty, but he is right. BSkyB was a major employer in Scotland before the bid and it remains a major employer after the withdrawal of the bid—so what was the benefit to Scotland of the Murdochs taking over BSkyB?
To quote James Murdoch’s evidence again,
“that meant ... quite a lot of operations and an increase in operations in Scotland, where technical support, IT, service centres ... were located for British Sky Broadcasting”.
When the chairman of a company that employs more than 6,000 people in direct jobs in Scotland says that the digital television platform would lead to an increase in its operations and more jobs in Scotland—and when he announces another 150 jobs in March and in May—he has a great deal more credibility than Johann Lamont, a Glasgow MSP who was not even aware of the huge threat to jobs in Glasgow.
What ultimately reveals Labour’s difficulty in this is that, when Johann Lamont was asked on Radio Scotland whether she would meet Rupert Murdoch because he was an important investor in Scotland, her answer—after a bit of hesitation—was that yes, she would meet him. That makes Johann Lamont the only Labour Party figure who wanted to meet either James or Rupert Murdoch to talk about jobs—the rest of them were apparently talking about many other things.
The difference between me and the First Minister is that if I met Rupert Murdoch, I would ask him how many jobs the deal brought with it. The First Minister seems to have taken him entirely at his word. The First Minister did not ask Scottish Government officials or Scottish Enterprise to assess things. Apparently, if Mr Murdoch says it, it must be true—meaningless assertion after meaningless assertion.
If the Murdoch bid would have created jobs in Scotland, why did the First Minister not ask Scottish Enterprise to assess the plan? What did the civil servants say about the bid and when did his Cabinet sign off the Government support for the deal? Why has he not answered the more than 40 questions that we have put to him about his dealings with Murdoch? As Robert Jay QC said yesterday,
“at the very least, there was a perception of cosiness”
between the First Minister and Rupert Murdoch. Nothing the First Minister has said changes that fact. Is it not true that Alex Salmond became Rupert Murdoch’s lackey not to create Scottish jobs but in an attempt to keep his own?
I have told Johann Lamont what James Murdoch said under oath at the Leveson inquiry, which speaks for itself. I have told her about the increase in jobs in Livingston, of which she seemed totally unaware. I have told her about the saving of 2,000 jobs through the intervention and excellence of HEROtsc, of which she was totally unaware in April. The Labour Party has been blissfully unaware of all those things.
I pointed out that I have had five meetings with Rupert Murdoch in the past five years. I also pointed out to the Leveson inquiry that that is not in the same league as the Labour Party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. In fact, over Gordon Brown’s brief period as prime minister, he managed some 17 meetings with Rupert Murdoch.
In case it is said that that was all in the past, in the bad old days of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I remind Johann Lamont as gently as I can of the words of Ed Miliband in The Sun on 22 April 2011. He said:
“Red Ed has died a death.”
He explained for The Sun’s readers, who were his main concern, that he was going to develop a new set of policies. He told the readership of The Sun that, even before the new policies would be known by Johann Lamont or any other MSP,
“You will read it first in The Sun.”
That strikes me as a pretty cosy relationship.
The First Minister has the cheek to accuse me—[Interruption.]
Order!
He has the cheek to accuse me of using a script, when he has prepared abuse that has nothing to do with the question that I asked him. [Interruption.]
Order! We will hear the member.
The First Minister has to confront the contradictions between the fact that, on 11 February 2011, Fred Michel said that the First Minister
“will call Hunt whenever we need him to”
and the fact that, according to written evidence to the Leveson inquiry, the Scottish Government had not expressed a view in early 2011 on the takeover. The First Minister must explain why he supported a takeover when it was self-evidently not about jobs. Everybody knows that it was not about jobs, so he needs to answer the question.
I thought that I explained this at some length at the Leveson inquiry yesterday. I am afraid that Johann Lamont’s interpretation of that does not meet the general interpretation of what was said. Let me see whether she can understand the key point. The responsibility of this Government is not competition policy—that lies with Westminster. Nor is it plurality in the press—that, too, lies with Westminster. The statutory responsibility of this Government is jobs and investment for Scotland. I assure Johann Lamont that that is the priority of this Government and that it is what we fight for every day of every week. If the Labour Party does not like that, that is fine, because this is a contest between two parties, one of which cares about jobs and the second of which cares about whatever Labour cares about. Certainly, the Scottish people care about jobs, jobs, jobs.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00750)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future. I think that the Prime Minister is otherwise engaged today.
I am sure that the First Minister kept his seat warm for him.
Let us stick with yesterday’s testimony. When Rupert Murdoch’s new baby, The Sun on Sunday, was launched, Alex Salmond was the first edition’s poster boy. He gave exclusive access and a full interview—nothing was off the table. The same edition had a front-page splash that said “Day of Destiny” and “Revealed” the date of the referendum. Yesterday, the First Minister said that he did not leak the date—indeed, it could not have been leaked because apparently you cannot leak a possibility. However, he did not say whether that date was given to The Sun as a possibility by one of his advisers. Did it come from the First Minister’s office—from a spin doctor, a civil servant or another adviser—and did he approve the date’s release?
Kind of unwittingly, I anticipated that Ruth Davidson might ask that question, because I read about it in The Daily Telegraph this morning—we could have an investigation into the cosy relationship between The Daily Telegraph and the Scottish Conservative Party. The point that I was making was simple—the date is not a preferred date or the date; it is a possible date, because it is in the autumn of 2014. The date of the referendum will be announced after we have analysed the consultation responses and seen what people have had to say in the more than 20,000 representations to the consultation. I understand that the Conservative Party did not make a representation, so we can safely say that Ruth Davidson has no views on these matters. However, the people of Scotland have views and, when we have analysed the consultation, the date of the referendum will be announced.
Since Johann Lamont previously asked the same question, we have had a move forward, because we have heard that the Prime Minister is not fussed about the autumn 2014 date although, unfortunately, he did not tell Ruth Davidson. After all the huffing and puffing, week after week, it turns out that her leader—he is at the Leveson inquiry today, although I am sure that he will not be asked about this—is not bothered. The date will be in the autumn of 2014.
It seems that all the charm and candour was used up yesterday and the First Minister is back to his usual self today. That was just like the First Minister—attacking anyone else and not answering the question. We were told:
“a Scottish Government source said: ‘This date is being lined up as the day when people will get the chance to vote for independence ... for Scotland.’”
Alex Salmond asks people to trust him on the issue, but we should look at the record of the past few weeks. The First Minister asserts that he has cross-party support for the independence campaign—no, he does not. He says that he knows that Scotland would not have to apply to join the euro—no, he does not. He asserts that he can put a Scot on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee—no, he cannot. He asserts that Scotland can just use the Financial Services Authority as a financial regulator—no, we cannot. He is making it up as he goes along. He is getting found out and people are watching. People are looking for real answers to legitimate questions about the future of Scotland, but the First Minister is selling Scotland short by refusing to give them. Does he really think that, based on past performance, people will believe him any more?
As cheerfully and as gently as possible, I point out to Ruth Davidson that the Financial Services Authority is being abolished. It is no more. It is a dead Financial Services Authority. It has fallen off its perch. It has gone. It is finished. We cannae join it even if we want to.
On political parties, we should remember that, only a week or so ago, Ruth Davidson and her new colleagues in the cross-party alliance and joint campaign with the Labour Party were outvoted in the Scottish Parliament by the cross-party campaign for independence. Ruth Davidson touched on political parties’ fortunes. I have been reading that Tory Hoose website again, and I note that the Holyrood candidate for Almond Valley has been talking about the most disastrous results for the Conservative Party in the past 20 years, and then summing up by saying:
“Leader Ruth Davidson ... has to accept ... responsibility. This was her first electoral test, and the results were certainly not a vote of confidence from the Scottish public.”
She should sort out her own hoose first, before she starts asking me questions.
Is the First Minister aware that, on Tuesday, Scottish Gas announced 135 job losses at its call centre and support facility in Uddingston? The GMB and Unison officials there are concerned that the work is to be transferred within the company to a facility with poorer pay and conditions. The First Minister was quick to call Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for his friend Sir David Murray and he could not wait to make a call to Jeremy Hunt for his friend Sir Rupert Murdoch. Are 135 Scottish Gas employees in Uddingston worthy of a phone call, or does the First Minister’s statutory responsibility to fight for Scottish jobs, jobs, jobs apply only to some and not to others?
That remark about Sir David Murray is totally untrue. I am used to Michael McMahon and others saying things that are less than factually accurate about me and the Scottish National Party, but if the member is going to say something about someone who is not in the chamber and therefore has no ability to defend themselves, I must at least put on the record that his remark about Sir David Murray is totally untrue.
Perhaps I can turn to the substance of what was meant to be a constituency question about jobs. Is Michael McMahon so caught up in the political battle that he cannot do the essential duty of any member of Parliament, which is to represent his constituents as best he can? I am aware of the matter and will be talking to the unions and the company to see what can be done for his constituents. We put the interests of his constituents first, even if his remarks put that into doubt.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00752)
The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Earlier this week, I received a letter from a former senior official of Scottish Enterprise, who was angry at the appointment of the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to the board of Intertek for an annual payment of £55,000 on top of her £200,000 salary. What does the First Minister have to say to that former Scottish Enterprise official?
I am surprised, because there are precedents for the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise being a non-executive director on the board of private companies under the Labour and Liberal Administration. Perhaps the former official was part of that Scottish Enterprise team. I am not sure whether Willie Rennie was aware of that but, nonetheless, it is a fact.
Willie Rennie should look at the positive reaction to this move from a range of business organisations. A lot of people understand the benefits of having the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise as one of the very few Scottish women who have ever been on the board of a FTSE 100 company. There are no conflict of interest concerns, because they have all been dealt with in Scottish Enterprise’s rules and regulations. Perhaps Willie Rennie should look at the broader picture and see the potential benefits to Scotland—and to Scottish Enterprise—of the appointment that was announced earlier this week.
Two years ago, the First Minister told the chamber that John Swinney had already acted to heavily restrict bonuses in the public sector; only now we find that there is a loophole allowing access to an extra £55,000. Most people—perhaps not those on the Scottish National Party benches—would not accept that £55,000 for 12 days’ work can be justified for someone who is already being paid £200,000 every year. [Laughter.] SNP members might laugh, but most people will find their laughter hollow.
I cannot really believe that the First Minister supports this appointment. If he reverses this decision today, he will get my support. Will he act?
I was just wondering myself what anyone would pay Willie Rennie as a non-executive director. I suppose that that might have been part of the reason for the interest shown in his comments.
There is a substantive point that Lena Wilson did not put in the press release—it is typical of the woman—but which I should make clear to Willie Rennie, because it might change his attitude to these matters. Under contracts that were drawn up during the years of the Labour and Liberal Administration, Lena Wilson has a contractual entitlement to a public sector bonus; indeed, it was commonplace for the contracts for the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to set out bonuses. She has relinquished her right to that public sector bonus. It seems to me that Willie Rennie should support that move, because it is in line with Government policy to eliminate contractual entitlements to bonuses from public sector contracts, even those that were drawn up and framed during the Labour and Liberal years of government. Eighty per cent of the people who were entitled to a bonus have voluntarily relinquished it. Lena Wilson has relinquished any entitlement to a public sector bonus. For the sake of fairness, on the record, Willie Rennie should accept that that is in line with Scottish Government policy. He should welcome that.
Suicide Rate
4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address the disparity in the suicide rate in Scotland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. (S4F-00755)
The Scottish Government is working hard with our partners in the national health service, local authorities and the third sector to reduce suicide and improve mental health and wellbeing. One life lost is too many, but the most recent figures published by the General Register Office for Scotland show that 2009 and 2010 had two of the lowest numbers of suicides in the past 20 years.
We have been supporting suicide prevention by improving access to psychological therapies; training front-line NHS staff in suicide prevention awareness; taking action to support people who abuse alcohol; and funding NHS Health Scotland’s choose life programme, which is the national strategy and action plan to prevent suicide in Scotland.
Research by the University of Edinburgh that was published this week showed that Scotland still has higher rates of suicide than the rest of the UK, which stems from the fact that Scotland has much higher rates of mental ill health in general. Research aside, anyone who has had personal contact with suicide through friends, family or loved ones knows how deep a tragedy every case is. Can the First Minister provide an assurance that the forthcoming and incredibly welcome mental health strategy will set out a substantive and comprehensive approach to improving Scotland’s mental health?
I echo the member’s comment about every suicide being a tragic loss. He is also right to point to the importance of mental health in many such tragedies. That is one reason why mental health is a priority for the Government. As the member knows, the mental health strategy was one of the first that we consulted on after last year’s election. The consultation closed on 31 January this year. We received a substantial number of responses—more than 340—and we will publish the mental health strategy in the summer. It will build on some of the successes that have been achieved in mental health and will set priorities for future improvement between now and 2015.
I am sure that the whole chamber understands the importance of the issue and the historical problem that Scotland has with such tragedies. Once the new strategy is in place, we will unite behind it to do whatever we can to reduce the number of such tragedies.
Modern Apprentice Programme (New Jobs)
5. To ask the First Minister how many new jobs have been created as a result of the modern apprenticeship programme. (S4F-00760)
As at 31 March this year, there were 35,262 apprentices in training, of whom 21,931 were aged between 16 and 19. Modern apprenticeships enable young people to gain better skills and a recognised qualification, and to develop confidence in the workplace. In addition, of course, every modern apprenticeship in Scotland is tied to a job.
Everyone in the chamber wants to tackle Scotland’s youth unemployment crisis, but to do so we need the facts. The people of Scotland were led to believe by the First Minister, week after week, that the 25,000 apprenticeships were created to help the 100,000 young Scots who are out of work, but now we know that at least 10,000 of those went to folk who were already well established in jobs. On an issue as important as this, why cannot he just be straight with people?
Over the past few days, I have watched Kezia Dugdale engage in what I think has been one of the most disreputable campaigns against modern apprenticeships in Scotland. At the heart of her new-found complaint—the rules on the matter have not changed from when the Labour Party was in office—is her belief that there are far too many people on the modern apprenticeship scheme who have been in jobs for six months or longer.
I have had a look at the figures. Let us remember that the number of modern apprenticeships in Scotland has almost doubled since this party took office in 2007—[Interruption.]
Mr Findlay, be quiet.
Of course, the Labour Party voted against that in this year’s budget.
I have looked at the heart of Kezia Dugdale’s complaint. If we look at 16 to 24-year-old apprentices, who predominate in the modern apprenticeship programme, we see that the proportion of them who had been in employment for more than six months was 23 per cent. That means that 80 per cent were new workers going into apprenticeships in the 16 to 24 age group. What was the figure when the Labour Party was in office in 2006? It was 49 per cent. In other words, when Labour was in power, with a reduced number of apprenticeships, half of the young people had been in a job for six months or longer. That figure has now been reduced to 23 per cent.
Kezia Dugdale has the effrontery to conduct a campaign against a modern apprenticeship scheme that is one of the most successful in western Europe.
Higher English Curriculum
6. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the teaching profession regarding proposed changes to the higher English curriculum. (S4F-00770)
The SQA works closely with teachers and subject experts in the development of qualifications. More than 5,000 teachers, lecturers and academics have been involved in the development of the new national qualifications in more than 60 subjects. That is an unprecedented involvement of expertise in the development of this key element of Scottish education. The higher English qualification to be introduced in 2015 has been developed in that manner.
Last week, teachers of English in Scotland’s schools backed an Educational Institute of Scotland motion that told Mike Russell to reverse his controversial decision to insist that there is a compulsory question on Scottish texts in the English higher, describing it as
“nothing to do with education”. [Interruption.]
That is the view of the EIS and many English teachers across Scotland. They raised concerns that
“Instead of ... enriching children’s learning, it will close it off and narrow it.”
Does the First Minister agree with that comment?
Liz Smith should look at the report of the expert Scottish studies working group, its recommendations and the people who were on it. I give as an example the view of Brian Boyd, professor of education at the University of Strathclyde. He said:
“I welcome the announcement that all students sitting higher English should be entitled to study a Scottish text. It’s the least we can do to signal the importance of our literary heritage and celebrate contemporary Scottish writing at the same time.”
The EIS, incidentally, should not be represented as being against the study of Scottish history and Scottish texts and literature. That is not its position.
I say to Liz Smith that the Conservative Party’s hostility, often, to the element of Scottish literature and history being developed in schools, and to the move to give the next generation of young people things that were, frankly, denied to my generation, does her party no credit. Indeed, its former deputy leader identified its attitude to such subjects as one of the reasons for the continual and everlasting decline of the Conservative Party in Scotland.
The Conservative Party should reconcile itself to the idea that many, many people in Scotland want to be able to learn about Scottish literature, culture and history in our schools and to have those placed in an international dimension.
12:33
Meeting suspended.
14:00
On resuming—