Engagements
Later today, the First Minister and I will attend the papal mass in Bellahouston park. I am sure that the whole Parliament will want to take the opportunity to welcome His Holiness Pope Benedict, who arrived in Scotland a short while ago, on what is a great day for the whole country. [Applause.]
I am delighted to welcome our guests to the country and to my constituency. I will welcome to Bellahouston park anyone else who is heading there, too.
Johann Lamont is absolutely right to raise the important issue of unemployment. The rise in unemployment that was announced yesterday is of great concern, because we should remember that behind the statistics and our political sparring are people and families. However, in the interests of balance, I point out to her that yesterday’s statistics showed a rise in employment and a fall in the economic inactivity rate. Two out of three of the latest indicators show encouraging signs and show that Scotland is doing marginally better than the rest of the UK. Of course, that does not downplay the concerns that we should have.
The SNP was left £1.5 billion in the kitty for the rainy days, but the SNP’s problem is that—unfortunately—it squandered that when the sun was still shining. It is one thing to express concern in government, but the Government needs to take action.
Mr Russell.
The Deputy First Minister’s feeble education colleague is presiding over the lowest number of teachers for eight years. Those jobs are needed by our economy and by our children, to help them. Is that what Nicola Sturgeon calls protecting jobs?
Johann Lamont forgot to say that of the £1.1 billion that she mentioned, £600 million was spent by the previous Administration before it left office. She needs to put all the facts before the chamber.
We do not need an English teacher—me—to tell us that that was not an answer, but we might need a maths teacher to help us count the alibis. It is a different minister but the same approach: “It wisnae me.”
In the spirit of trying to find some consensus, let me say to Johann Lamont that I, on behalf of the Scottish Government, will take responsibility, as we do every single day, for addressing, as far as we can within our powers and resources, the challenges of the economic climate that we live in. It would be better if, in return, Labour took any responsibility for having created the economic climate that we live in.
I hate to think what would happen if Nicola Sturgeon was not taking responsibility. If she defines that as taking responsibility, what would she do if she were not taking responsibility? Her complacency is stunning. If someone takes responsibility, they act on the powers that they have.
I, like every other member of this Parliament, will leave my own job to the good judgment of the electorate, but let me say to Johann Lamont that this Government is working hard in Glasgow and across Scotland to deal with and steer Scotland through these very difficult economic times. That is why we have more modern apprenticeships, for example, than ever before. It is also why such a significant proportion of this Government’s capital investment is in and around the city of Glasgow. I will take no lessons from Labour on the economic climate that we live in, but I will take responsibility—as does every minister in this Government—for steering us through it. We would be far better equipped to get through the economic difficulties that we face if this Parliament had full economic powers. If Labour wants to take more action, it should back that position.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
The First Minister has no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.
As we speak, the pipes and drums are playing, the crowds are lining Princes Street and saltires are waving in the air. I hope that the First Minister will not be too disappointed when he finds out that they are not there for him.
Let me say to Murdo Fraser that some of what he has quoted is simply not accurate, but I will come back to that in a second. First, let me remind him that this Government has exceeded by some considerable margin its efficient government savings. It has reduced by more than 25 per cent the number of devolved public sector bodies, delivering substantial savings for reinvestment in front-line services.
This is not about the number of quangos or the number of brass plates on doors; it is about their total cost, which has gone up year on year. John Swinney has promised that he will save £39 million a year from quangos, but that comes nowhere near the massive increase in the cost of our quangos of £600 million in three years. Alex Salmond promised smaller, fitter and better government, but the quango state is alive and well with the SNP. Will Alex Salmond’s legacy be a bigger, bloated bureaucracy?
I had hoped that this would be one of the relatively few areas in which the Government and the Conservatives could find some common cause. We all recognise the importance of directing as much taxpayers’ money as possible to the front line in these difficult financial times, and we will always look at how we can do better. However, the Government has a proud record. In addition to the achievements that I mentioned in my first answer, we can cite the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. We are slimming down the public sector in terms of quangos, and we have reduced the number of ministers from the number under the previous Administration. For the past two years, we have had a ministerial pay freeze, and we are constraining salaries at the upper end of the civil service. Let me say in the spirit of consensus that I am sure that there is always more that we can do, but I hope that the Conservatives will acknowledge the real progress that this Government has made.
Cabinet (Meetings)
As always, the next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I take this opportunity to add our good wishes to the successful state visit of Pope Benedict.
I remember the experience of Wendy Alexander—I am not sure whether she is in the chamber today—when it came to awarding marks, so I will steer clear of that particular pitfall.
I notice that the Deputy First Minister avoided answering the question. I asked her to respond to the long list of failures that I set out, and I asked her how she graded the First Minister on them—her response did not sound like a great endorsement.
Oh, what a waste of a question. Tavish will be—
Mr Swinney!
Among so many other things, the First Minister has failed the north-east on Inveramsay, on Kintore station, on the A90 and on travel times. Will any of those projects even be started before the SNP Government leaves office next year?
I will come to my rating of my leader in a second; on the basis of Mike Rumbles’s performance, it is clear that he has come to the Parliament with the clear objective of making his leader look good. As everyone knows, I rate my leader very highly on all matters.
Spending Review (Trade Union Involvement)
We face cuts in the Scottish budget, which are being imposed on us by Whitehall. We are clear that the cuts go too fast and too deep. It is also clear that although the coalition Government inherited two thirds of the cuts, it is responsible for adding the remaining third.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that although the majority of cuts were imposed by the previous, Labour Administration after its disastrous financial mismanagement, the cuts that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition proposes go too far and too fast and will undermine many jobs throughout the country?
I absolutely agree with Brian Adam. Particularly in light of Johann Lamont’s questions, it is worth reminding ourselves that £2 out of every £3 of the cuts that the coalition Government is planning were first planned by the Labour Government. Labour members would do well to remember that when they discuss the matter in future.
Most of the unions that I have spoken to predict a period of job losses across the public sector in Scotland. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the Government’s policy of no compulsory redundancies in Scottish Government departments will continue during the next period? Will she also clarify what steps the Scottish Government will take during the next few months and years to ensure that voluntary redundancy is maximised across the public sector and that compulsory redundancies are minimised?
I thank John Park for his question and the constructive tone in which he asked it. Everyone in the public sector, and throughout Scotland, is extremely aware of the pressures on public sector head count because of the economic circumstances that we face. In this comprehensive spending review period, the Government has had a policy of no compulsory redundancies, which I know has been important in the health service. As the member is aware, the Government cannot take final decisions about the next spending review until we hear the details of it on 20 October. However, that will be considered in the round. There are a variety of voluntary redundancy schemes in different parts of the public sector throughout Scotland. However, I echo and endorse the tenets of John Park’s question, which is that we want to avoid compulsory redundancies.
Given the situation inherited from Labour, what level of cuts in public spending would not be too far, too fast?
David McLetchie should reflect on the fact that it is not just this Government that says that the cuts planned by the coalition Government go too far, too fast; that is also the view of the International Monetary Fund. A possible point of agreement between the two sides of the chamber is that we know that the economic mess that we face was created by the previous, Labour Government. While there is no doubt that that has to be managed, we believe that the cuts are too far and too fast and that they jeopardise economic recovery and jobs. For that reason, they should be opposed.
Last week, the First Minister told Parliament that there should be no reductions at all in the Scottish budget. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth told the Finance Committee that there was no doubt that there should be reductions in the Scottish budget, owing to the unprecedented level of debt in the United Kingdom. Who does the Deputy First Minister agree with, the First Minister or the finance secretary?
In all seriousness, Jeremy Purvis cannot suggest that anyone in this Government says that the deficit does not have to be dealt with. Everyone agrees that the deficit has to be dealt with. The question is what timescale should apply to that, and at what pace it should happen. I believe that the cuts proposed by the coalition Government—which, let us not forget, includes the Liberal Democrats—go too far, too fast. The IMF, for example, proposed far less than the UK Government is proposing. If the UK Government was seriously interested in protecting jobs and economic recovery, it would reconsider its plans.
Alcohol (Caffeine Content)
I know that Labour has concerns about the possible effects of consumption of pre-mixed caffeinated alcoholic drinks, particularly in relation to criminal behaviour. Although Labour took a view on minimum pricing before the evidence had been presented, I have consistently said that I remain open to considering any proposals by Labour, or others, that can contribute to reducing alcohol-related harm. However, in order for an amendment on limiting caffeine in alcoholic drinks to comply with European law, evidence needs to be provided to show that such an amendment is necessary in order to protect health or to prevent crime. Yesterday, experts told the Health and Sport Committee that there was no such evidence. If Labour members have evidence, I invite them to bring it forward.
In evidence to the Health and Sport Committee yesterday, Bob Hamilton said that there was no association between violence and tonic wine. However, this is the same Bob Hamilton who told a BBC investigation:
The difference between me and Richard Simpson is that I listen to the evidence on alcohol. If he has such evidence, he should present it formally. I assure him that the Government will consider it carefully.
I draw the Deputy First Minister’s attention to the evidence that was given to the Health and Sport Committee yesterday, not just by Chief Superintendent Bob Hamilton, but by Dr Alasdair Forsyth of the Glasgow centre for the study of violence, who said, “There’s no research to suggest that mixing caffeine and alcohol is related to mood in any way, either making you more aggressive or less aggressive.” He also pointed out, “If you got rid of pre-mixed alcohol-caffeine products, people would just mix their own, and bars can mix them for people.” Does the Deputy First Minister agree that if the experts are unconvinced that such a ban would work or could even be enforced, Labour will really struggle to convince members of this Parliament?
Yes, I agree, although I repeat what I said earlier: I remain open-minded about anything that can help us to reduce the damage that alcohol does.
Older People (Care Funding)
The Scottish Government has regular discussions with local government on issues of common interest, including funding issues. The substantial cuts that we expect the United Kingdom Government to announce next month will present us with huge challenges, but until we know the full scale of those cuts, it would be premature to speculate on specific amounts.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree with the SNP deputy leader of East Renfrewshire Council, who has suggested that tax rises or direct charging for care should be introduced to meet the predicted shortfall? If not, what does the Scottish Government intend to do to help councils to meet their obligations to provide free personal care for the elderly?
As the member is aware, this Government is providing record funding to local government, which now has a bigger share of total Scottish Government funding than in the past; it certainly has a bigger share than was the case under the previous Administration.
Could the recommendations of the Arbuthnott review of Clyde valley local authorities form part of the solution to bridging the funding gap on care for the elderly?
The Arbuthnott review makes lots of interesting recommendations. John Arbuthnott is, of course, a former chair of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, so he is well aware of the challenges that are involved.