First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00351)
Later today, I shall be witnessing the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Scottish and Southern Energy, Dundee City Council, Forth Ports and Scottish Enterprise, which will secure Dundee’s position as a vibrant hub for Scotland’s developing offshore renewables sector. Scottish Enterprise analysis shows that Dundee port has the potential to support around 700 jobs in offshore wind-turbine manufacturing, with further job opportunities in supply-chain development in the Dundee area. The announcement today is proof of our ambition to bring world-class offshore suppliers to Scotland.
Of course I welcome the potential for those jobs in Dundee, but the announcement comes at a time when 400 jobs are going every day. By Saturday, we will have lost more jobs than that memorandum of understanding promises. Four weeks ago, I asked the First Minister how many Scots had to be unemployed before he would admit that his plan MacB was not working. Since then, another 25,000 Scots have joined the dole queue. Will he now admit that it is not working?
Before I disagree with Iain Gray, I shall say a few words to the chamber about him. He has served his party with distinction as a minister and, most recently, as leader of the Opposition. I have greatly enjoyed our weekly jousts in the chamber and I know that, whoever his successor might be, he or she has a hard act to follow. I am certain that Iain Gray has a major role still to play in public life, and I wish him well for the future.
I have been looking across the range and, first, there is no disagreement between Iain Gray and me on the fact that unemployment, jobs, the economy and the interruption of recovery that is now a substantial threat are the most serious issues of all. I would, however, like to give him some comparisons. Under this Scottish National Party Government, the month-by-month statistics show that for 72 per cent of the time, Scottish unemployment has been better than the United Kingdom average, and that for 87 per cent of the time—including this month—Scottish employment has been better than the UK average. The figures when Labour was in control of this Parliament were 10 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. So, although we jointly agree that this is the most serious issue of all, I hope that we can also jointly understand that demand in the economy at present is overwhelmingly controlled by the UK Government. We should, therefore, put our claim for increased demand to confront the economic recession to the people who currently have the powers over us. Of course, I hope that we can also agree that those are exactly the powers that should come to this Parliament.
I thank the First Minister for his kind and gracious words, and I certainly accept them in the spirit in which they were said. I am going to miss this, so I hope that he will forgive me if I also disagree with him.
To try to play with the figures by looking at previous months and a particular aspect of the statistics is not to treat with respect the problem that so many Scots face. The 229,000 Scots who are on the dole do not believe that we are outperforming the UK. That is not just spin; that is what the Americans call “post-truth politics”—just repeating the same thing over and over again, even though it is demonstrably not true.
It is only three months ago that the First Minister was touring the TV studios, boasting:
“Scotland is the only place in these islands—the only nation, the only region, the only place—where unemployment is falling. Therefore, there must be something distinctive happening which is not happening in economies elsewhere in these islands. Plan MacB has a great deal to recommend it.”
Now he says that the problem lies somewhere else. He loves to claim the credit when things go well, but is he big enough to take responsibility when things go wrong?
On 3 November, the Labour Party in Scotland published a five-point plan for growth. Four of the five points were directed at the UK Government and one was directed at the Scottish Government—to bring forward a long-term investment project plan, which Alex Neil has done in spades, as members will acknowledge. The four points that were directed at the UK Government were on bank bonuses, VAT and national insurance reductions.
Iain Gray said that I have been “touring the TV studios”, which is not something that I normally do, as members well know. However, in May, June, July, August, September and October, when the statistics showed that Scottish unemployment was falling, we put forward the argument that initiatives such as the acceleration of capital spending were a large requirement in, and a large part of the reason for, that falling unemployment. We asked the United Kingdom Government—not just on our own, but in conjunction three times with the other devolved Assemblies across the United Kingdom—to implement similar plans: that is, not just increased capital spending for 2014 and beyond but increased capital spending now, as we accelerated capital spending last year to impact directly on the economy at the time.
I can quote from each of those months as I toured the television studios. In each of those months I warned that unless that action was taken by the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was every chance that recovery in Scotland would be derailed. Given that Labour acknowledged in its own plan where demand management lies in the United Kingdom at the present moment, and given that in each of those months when the Scottish employment provision was improving I pointed to that very fact, cannot we in this last exchange between us unite to agree that we should have in this Parliament the responsibility for bringing jobs and prosperity to our people?
Of course we agree that the action that the UK Government is taking is wrong and is not working, but the action that Mr Salmond and his Government are taking is not working, either. That is probably because, in essence, they are doing the same thing: they are slashing the public sector and slashing capital investment.
However, the First Minister’s answer goes to the heart of the matter, because on Tuesday he claimed yet again that the answer to the problem is his referendum on separation and more powers, and he has repeated that today. In all sincerity I say this to him: 229,000 Scots on the dole need urgent action. If he really believes that the referendum is the answer and is really telling those unemployed Scots that his referendum is the solution that they need, why is he telling them that they must wait three, four or five years for it?
Let us deal first with capital investment, because it is something that Iain Gray has unwisely brought to the chamber a number of times. Thanks to the initiatives that are being taken by John Swinney in transferring from revenue to capital over the period of the spending review, and thanks to the non-profit distribution programme, capital spending will rise from this year at £2.685 billion to £3.365 billion in 2014-15. The point is that by taking the measures that we are taking we can increase capital spending over the next few years. Among the key components of the plan that we put to the chancellor was that something should be done about demand now. That can be done only by an increase in direct Government capital spending, which lies within the province of the United Kingdom Government.
The United Kingdom Government’s argument, incidentally, is that it is doing exactly the same thing as Alistair Darling planned: deeper and tougher cuts than Margaret Thatcher’s. However, Iain Gray and I should be able to unite in saying that that is not the right way; the right way is to increase capital spending now, as well as in the next few years.
In terms of the support for a variety of constitutional options, I will stick to the timetable that I laid out to the people in the election campaign. However, we had—had we not?—an interesting insight into the political support for the options or for political parties in Scotland just last Friday in a MORI poll that showed that not only is support for independence increasing, but that the percentage of people who want all economic powers to come before this Parliament is now running at 70 per cent. I say to the Labour members that, in that poll, their support was at 26 per cent, which I understand is an historic low for the Labour Party in Scotland.
The last poll I saw at the weekend said that two thirds of Scots want the referendum to be done quickly and out of the way.
I have been doing this for quite a while now, so I know that when Alex Salmond starts talking about what other people—Alistair Darling, Ed Miliband or whoever—have said, he wants to run away from what he has said. He said that in Scotland our economy was growing, our employment market was strengthening and we were outperforming the UK, but it was not true.
However, it is not just Alex Salmond. Nicola Sturgeon told us that she was not cutting the national health service, but today Audit Scotland has said that she is. Kenny MacAskill told us that he was cutting knife crime; this week, it turns out that knife murders in Scotland have soared. Mike Russell has been telling us for months that class sizes in our schools were falling; last week, we discovered that they have gone up. I saw that Alex Salmond arrived in China last week without his trews. Is that not the perfect metaphor for him and his whole Government? Even on their own beloved referendum, are they not always all mouth and no trousers? [Applause.]
Quiet!
Not for the first time in answering Iain Gray’s questions, I have a range of possibilities to choose from. First, I gently point out to him that page 5 of the Audit Scotland report states:
“Territorial boards have received a real-terms increase in funding in 2011/12”.
Iain Gray will remember that during the election campaign he refused to commit himself to putting all the consequentials into health.
The MORI poll that Iain Gray refers to also shows SNP support at 51 per cent and satisfaction with this Government at 62 per cent. Whatever he and his band in this Parliament think, a lot of folk in Scotland think that this SNP Government is acting in the interests of our people and doing its best in difficult economic circumstances.
I have been thinking back on our exchanges over the past four years. Perhaps the highlight for both of us was Gypsy Amalia. I have reconsulted Gypsy Amalia, who is very optimistic about Iain Gray’s prospects and says that new opportunities will beckon in the new year. She understands that Labour leadership positions might be opening up in London; I think that Iain Gray would be the ideal candidate.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. As this is Iain Gray’s last First Minister’s questions, I give him the best wishes for the future from the Conservative benches. He will now have more time to spend walking the fields of East Lothian. I know that he will continue to make a big contribution both to the debates ahead and to this chamber.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00340)
I have no plans to meet him in the near future, although I watched him denounce the Prime Minister on television on Tuesday night.
I congratulate Ruth Davidson on appointing Michael Tait as her press adviser. I understand that, last night, he won what the press call the tartan bollocks award for the most incredible story with no factual foundation during the year. It sounds like she has the ideal man for Conservative party material.
I am sure that the First Minister will remember that when he appointed a male journalist as an adviser to his team, that journalist also won the tartan bollocks. The difference between the First Minister’s adviser and mine is that at least mine had the balls to go and collect his award.
In 2007, the First Minister told the Parliament that his Council of Economic Advisers was
“our best chance in several generations to tackle the problem of systemic economic mediocrity.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2007; c 1329.]
The council is supposed to meet every quarter. Can the First Minister tell me when it last met?
The Council of Economic Advisers was appointed last month and will meet in January. I am sure that Ruth Davidson will acknowledge that, with two Nobel laureates on it, the council will provide the Parliament and the Government with valuable advice. I know that Ruth Davidson has done her research—with the help or otherwise of Michael Tait—so she will know who Joseph Stiglitz is, unlike her predecessor.
Despite that slightly patronising brush-off, the fact remains that the First Minister’s Council of Economic Advisers—his hand-picked group of experts; his wise men—has not met since September 2010. That is 14 months ago. In the 14 months since the council last met, we have been buffeted by debt crises in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland and there is turmoil in the euro zone. In Britain, we have had a three-year spending review and an autumn statement, and the Scottish Government has put out a new economic strategy and a draft budget. There has been a raft of economic data, and in the most recent quarter alone unemployment in Scotland has gone up by 25,000.
In the light of all that and on reflection, why the silence, while the First Minister was touring the television studios, as he told us? Why did not the council meet?
The Council of Economic Advisers, according to the plan that was set out, is reappointed after a parliamentary election. It would have been rather presumptuous to have reappointed it before a parliamentary election. The council was drawn together and announced last month, and it will meet in January.
Ruth Davidson talks about all the things that have buffeted Scotland. What is buffeting Scotland at the moment is the disastrous economic policies of her Government at Westminster and the comprehensive spending review.
Given that Ruth Davidson has introduced the European issue to the debate, let me say that we have a Prime Minister who, in effect, sabotages the prospects of a deal in Europe to stabilise the euro zone, isolates this country, jeopardises key Scottish issues, such as fishing, and does that without so much as a by-your-leave and without consultation of any of the other countries of the United Kingdom. I am sure that Ruth Davidson was as much in the dark as Nick Clegg was about the Prime Minister’s tactics. Is it not rather a high price to pay for Scotland to be misrepresented in European councils? Does not she realise that more and more people in Scotland would prefer independence in Europe to isolation with Britain?
Does the First Minister acknowledge that an election campaign lasts six weeks, whereas the council has not met for 14 months?
I am happy to stand by my Prime Minister’s actions in sorting out the best deal for the whole United Kingdom. Does the First Minister acknowledge that Scottish National Party member Joe FitzPatrick has signed an amendment to a motion that my deputy, Jackson Carlaw, lodged to exactly that effect? Members on his own benches are on our side on this one, too, as well as the country.
I heard Jackson Carlaw on the radio. He was talking about a Tobin tax, which was not even on the table. This is the first time in history that a Prime Minister has vetoed something that was not even on the table, which would have no effect on the things that he says he is worried about. The Wall Street Journal, which knows a thing or two about the financial sector, says, “UK Banks Fear Fallout From EU Rift”.
It was the height of irresponsibility not just to sabotage prospects of solving the euro zone crisis and stabilising a great threat to our economy, but to isolate key Scottish industries from European influence. Will the fishing talks this week be helped or hindered by David Cameron’s irresponsibility? Is not there a high price for Scotland to pay because David Cameron is frightened of 80 Tory Eurosceptics and Boris Johnson?
The First Minister will be aware of media reports of the suspension of the national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland and the air of mystery surrounding the situation. Can he confirm to me and the 2,500 children’s panel volunteers, of which I used to be one, that the timetable for reform of the panel system has not slipped and that plans for new area support teams will be agreed by the end of January?
I can give the assurance that the timetable has not slipped and will not slip, and that measures have been put in place to ensure that the necessary changes to the children’s panel system, which has served Scotland extremely well, will be continued and matters will go forward.
The First Minister will be aware that, this week, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills set out and opened the formal process for deciding the location of the green investment bank, and that a wide coalition of organisations, including Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, has been at the forefront of the campaign to bring that £3 billion institution to Scotland. Will the First Minister add his personal support to the cross-party support that has already been received in the Parliament and outline why he thinks Edinburgh would be the best and the natural choice for the institution?
The Government has supported Edinburgh’s green investment bank bid since its inception and we continue to do so. I have been in communication with UK ministers to support Edinburgh as the best location, as have my ministerial colleagues. There is wide civic support in Scotland for the green investment bank to be located in Edinburgh and the business case was debated and given the full support of the Parliament in June. I am sure that members will join me again today in confirming that all-party support.
Cabinet (Meeting)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00342)
We will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I, too, wish Iain Gray well in the future. He has been a great servant in the Parliament and I am sure that he has much more to contribute.
September’s unemployment rates showed a slight improvement but, like December’s, they were nowhere near good enough anywhere in the United Kingdom. Iain Gray is right that, in September, the First Minister claimed that those slightly better rates were a clear sign of his miracle cure—plan MacB. At that time, the First Minister said that plan MacB was “bearing fruit” and producing “dividends”. That was then, but now he blames the UK. With the First Minister, it is, “Heads I win; tails you lose.” However, there is no magic left in that trick. I am pleased that he is prepared to co-operate with the UK Government to meet that big challenge. Is he now prepared to work with the UK Government on its £1 billion youth contract, which has £100 million for Scotland?
We have welcomed that and we will of course continue to work with the UK Government. I hope that Willie Rennie will support the conclusions of the Smith group on areas in which the Parliament could have much more active responsibility, for example, in controlling Jobcentre Plus. Just to nail the issue, I will read exactly a quotation that I made in those months. Let us have it exactly, just so that members remember it. I said:
“While the Scottish labour market continues to outperform the UK as a whole—with lower unemployment, higher employment, and lower economic inactivity rates—today’s figures reinforce our urgent and consistent demand that the UK Government must deliver a ‘Plan MacB’ approach immediately, to ensure that the recovery being built in Scotland is not derailed by Westminster’s wrong-headed economic policy.”
Consistently, as the Scottish figures improved, John Swinney and I pointed to the fact that the key economic levers lay with Westminster. We signed three joint declarations with Wales and Northern Ireland, which have exactly the same problem.
I understand that Willie Rennie belongs to a party that is not really unionist, if I am to believe the Secretary of State for Scotland’s comments this week. Will Mr Rennie now tell us that at least he is a real devolutionist and agree that real economic powers should lie with the Scottish Government and Parliament so that we can set the economy to rights?
He ducks and he dives, but we know what he said and we know what he meant.
We know what he said.
Mr Stevenson—that is enough.
The First Minister can no longer duck and he can no longer dive. My concern is that he says that he wants to co-operate, but on the announcement of the youth contract, he immediately talked down the £100 million that is available for it. He said that it was £6 million a year and he completely dismissed the £82 million extra, in addition to the £18 million, that the Scottish Government will get. Either he did not understand it, or he was trying to sabotage it. What is the point of trying to sabotage that major scheme? Scottish businesses need to know that the youth contract applies to them. Will the First Minister make it absolutely clear that it is a big scheme and that it is good for business and Scottish young people? Is he prepared to work with the UK Government to make the scheme a success in Scotland?
Let me see if I can disentangle that amazing question. I said “yes” the first time, so I will say “yes” again. I do not understand why Willie Rennie thinks that that is ducking and diving. “Yes” just means “yes”.
The point about the £100 million is that the Scottish consequentials were £6 million a year. Over a three-year period, that is £18 million. We did not stick at £18 million but put it up to £30 million, which is the additional fund—in addition to the £2 billion that we already provide—that Angela Constance is taking into the battle against youth unemployment.
I quoted the Smith group—a cross-party group of excellent, estimable Scottish businesspeople—which recommends that Jobcentre Plus be devolved to this Parliament for the more effective use of resources. I hope that Willie Rennie, who claims to be a devolutionist, will support that proposal.
We have already met the Department for Work and Pensions. Of course, we will co-operate in every single way to bring every single job that we can possibly bring to the young people of Scotland, just as, incidentally, we will oppose the DWP plans, which would impoverish some of the poorest people in Scotland.
Prime Minister (European Union Summit)
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s assessment is of the economic impact on Scotland of the Prime Minister’s actions at the EU summit last week. (S4F-00345)
The Prime Minister’s actions were irresponsible in deploying the non-veto at last week’s summit. The summit was intended to endorse at political level stronger fiscal rules to govern the conduct of member states inside the euro zone. Those rules would then be taken to the Court of Justice to give them legal backing. They would then have been the justification for the European Central Bank to act decisively to stabilise the euro area. Instead of that, thanks to the Prime Minister and the Tory Eurosceptics, that plan is completely up in the air.
Not only that, but we go into vital fishing talks this week. Does anybody in the chamber believe that our hopes of mobilising support and agreement to turn over some of the Commission’s more disastrous proposals will be aided by the Prime Minister’s actions in Europe last week? He said that he wants to support the financial services industry, much to the bemusement of the industry, which had not asked for the veto. However, what about the fishing industry? What about all the other industries of Scotland that are endangered by the Tory policy of isolation in Europe?
I call Stuart McMillan. Briefly, please.
Given that the euro area accounts for some 42 per cent of Scottish exports and represents such a vital market for Scotland, does the First Minister agree with the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s statement in its report on trade from September 2010 that we should build on the existing network of Scottish Development International’s overseas offices and consider the Scotland house model that operates in Tallinn? Does he agree that that is one way in which to try to circumvent a Prime Minister who is not only isolated in his own party on Europe, but is trying to isolate the economic prospects of Scotland and all the other nations and regions in the UK?
While Stuart McMillan was speaking, I heard the deputy leader of the Conservative party say, “We’re still in there.” Yes, but clinging on by our fingertips would be my estimation of the situation.
It is abundantly clear that, for Scotland to have its interests properly represented, we need a seat at the top table when vital discussions about matters that affect Scottish life take place. Ministers in this Government will ensure that they engage with a range of our stakeholders, who know the importance of European decision making to Scotland, in order to try to bring that to best effect. However, after the events of the past week, I do not think that anybody will ever again trust the United Kingdom Tory Government to represent Scotland in Europe. Why do we not just do it for ourselves?
National Health Service (Spending Balance)
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the balance of spending between administrators, beds and nursing staff in the NHS. (S4F-00357)
Health service boards make local decisions on how best to allocate their resources in a way that improves the health and wellbeing of the communities for which they are responsible. The Parliament will be aware that spending on the health service is at record levels, and the Government has delivered on its pledge to protect the health budget. As the report that the Auditor General published this morning makes clear,
“Territorial boards have received a real terms increase ... in 2011/12”.
That is a real-terms increase to protect front-line services in our national health service.
This week, the Auditor General reported that half of the 2,500 national health service staff who have left their jobs since 2009 are nurses and midwives. Does the First Minister agree with the comments of the Scotland Patients Association’s chief executive, Dr Jean Turner, that
“It is crazy to train them and then lose their expertise and experience.”
I am sure that Jackie Baillie knows that there are more people working in the national health service today than there were when we took office. The Auditor General’s report says that, with the exception of unallocated staff, the biggest percentage reductions in staff have been in administrative and support services, which fully carries forward Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to slim down the bureaucracy of the national health service and ensure a better result for patients.
Every statistic in the Auditor General’s report makes it clear that our national health service is performing extraordinarily well under the most difficult circumstances. Does anyone really believe that those circumstances would have been better if Labour had been in power and did not protect the national health service budget? On 8 September 2010, Iain Gray said:
“We wouldn’t ring fence the health budget.”
That is just one of the reasons why Jackie Baillie is sitting where she is and this Government is standing where I am.
"Powering Scotland"
6. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the Reform Scotland report, “Powering Scotland”. (S4F-00343)
The Reform Scotland report is the latest of a number of reports to confirm that Scotland has fantastic energy resources in its people, its geography and its natural resources. It confirms that there is a massive economic value of electricity exports from Scotland that is worth £2 billion a year, even on the lowest estimates.
Does the First Minister agree that in two senses the report calls into question the judgment of renewables naysayers? First, it shows that there is absolutely no need for a new generation of nuclear power stations in Scotland and, secondly, it demonstrates that those who have jumped on other reports with relish and used them to claim that renewables are not sustainable in the context of independence were totally wrong to do so.
I agree with Mr Hepburn. The report also argues for greater powers over energy for the Scottish Parliament in order to enable us to deliver an even more attractive investment environment, a stable regulatory framework and closer integration with European electricity markets.
The Reform Scotland report should be read by every member of this Parliament, not least because the Reform Scotland advisory board contains old friends including Wendy Alexander, Jeremy Purvis and Derek Brownlee. An organisation with that cast of brilliance at its very heart should be listened to and recognised by every person in this chamber.
Given the huge potential that Scotland has for green energy, particularly in marine energy, surely we need to do everything we can to retain the United Kingdom electricity market and the massive cross-subsidy that Scotland gets for our renewables and our grid upgrades.
Scotland will produce potentially the cheapest marine energy in Europe. It will be a commodity that will be very much in demand. It will be required south of the border and, over time, on the continent of Europe. Only in the mind of the Labour Party could a massive asset that would be wished for by every country in the continent—25 per cent of the potential resource—be a potential disadvantage to Scotland. The rest of us realise that it is a resource.
Of course, Sarah Boyack is probably one of those people who said that North Sea oil was not really worth anything and we should give it away and allow Westminster to run it. I think that all our resources should be put with the people of Scotland, so that we can bring about the prosperous society that we want.
12:33
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—