First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2962)
This afternoon, I will be speaking to Keith Anderson, the managing director of ScottishPower Renewables. As the chamber may know, this morning, as a Government, we have given the green light to the world’s largest tidal power array in the Sound of Islay—a project of 10MW capacity, which is four times the installed capacity around the world at present. I know that everyone will welcome that energy and technology, on which Scotland leads the world.
Yes, that is a great project. It was a great project when the First Minister first announced it in Oslo in August. That is the great thing about Alex Salmond’s renewables announcements—they are endlessly renewable.
Yesterday, in response to new unemployment figures, the First Minister boasted that his policies were “paying off handsomely”. Does it not worry him that there are 218,000 Scots out of work, which is 2,000 more than there were one month ago? They were not paid off handsomely; they were just paid off. Youth unemployment has increased for the third month in a row. Does the First Minister really think that that is something to boast about?
Let me deal first with the tidal array project. What was announced in Oslo last autumn was the co-operation agreement between Scottish Power and other companies to proceed with the project. Six months later, that project is now proceeding to construction. As well as putting Scotland in a world-leading position on that technology, it will generate jobs across the country. Barely 20 energy projects were licensed during the entire time of the last Administration. The Sound of Islay project is the 40th renewables project that has been licensed and given the go-ahead by the Scottish National Party Administration.
I am delighted that at last—for the first time this year—Iain Gray has come to the economy. His timing is impeccable because, of course, unemployment in Scotland is far too high. Youth unemployment, in particular, is far too high, but most people would welcome the fact that Scotland is now unique in these islands in having rising employment for the eighth month running and falling unemployment for the fourth month running. Against the background of the cutbacks from the Westminster Tory-Liberal Government, that seems to me to be an achievement that should be noted and which should be marked by a joint celebration by the chamber and a determination to do more to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment, in particular.
There are 218,000 Scots out of work, which is 2,000 more than there were a month ago. Frankly, I think that they expect more than a rousing chorus of “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” from the First Minister.
The First Minister also told us yesterday that the construction sector was booming. When did he last speak to a construction worker? Construction workers do not believe that and we did not believe it, either, so we got the official figures. Alex Salmond inherited £1.3 billion-worth of construction-ready projects from Labour. When he leaves government, he will leave behind projects that are worth £135 million. That is one tenth of the work that we left behind.
Order—let us hear the question.
That is the Salmond slump: tens of thousands of construction jobs gone, right there. Does the First Minister really think that that is something to boast about?
Right: the official figures—[Interruption.]
Order.
I am not talking about the Andy Kerr figures; I am talking about the Office for National Statistics. Yesterday, the BBC actually had a debate asking who is right on the unemployment figures: is it Andy Kerr, or is it the Office for National Statistics? On balance, after some thought, I suspect that the army of statisticians and economists in the Office for National Statistics might know slightly more about them than Andy Kerr—or, for that matter, Iain Gray.
On construction employment, I have the official figures here. There are three series on construction employment. At the end of quarter 3 in 2010, full jobs—workforce jobs in construction—were 180,100, which is a rise of 23,400 on the year, and 14 per cent up on the year. In contrast, across the UK there was a decline of 1.3 per cent. That rise is substantially due to the wise decision of Mr Swinney to accelerate capital projects.
Iain Gray gave us some figures and tried to pretend that they were figures for capital projects. What he gave us were the private finance initiative figures. Actual capital expenditure over the past four years by this Government has been £14 billion, which compares with £9 billion under the previous Labour and Liberal Administration.
The private finance initiative is not the whole of capital projects in Scotland. It is only that bit of it that costs the public purse an arm and a leg, and for which we will be paying for ever. [Applause.]
Order, order. This set of questions is taking too long. I need shorter questions and shorter answers, please.
The trouble is that those on the ground who face the reality of unemployment believe none of that—and with good reason. The First Minister’s promise was to match Labour brick for brick, but the reality is a Futures Trust that has yet to build a single school. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister’s promise was to match Labour’s teacher numbers; the reality is that he has cut 3,000. His promise was to protect the national health service from Tory cuts; the reality is a cut of 1,500 nursing jobs.
Never mind the statisticians—can the First Minister look teachers, nurses and construction workers in the eye and tell them that everything is “paying off handsomely”?
“Never mind the statisticians”—that is interesting. Never mind the figures: listen to Andy Kerr and Iain Gray. I think that a former maths teacher will understand that a 14.3 per cent increase over a year seems to be quite a substantial increase in construction employment.
Iain Gray challenges me to match the Labour Party. I would have thought that in recent times it has been Iain Gray who has been trying to match the SNP, on things such as university tuition fees, the council tax or even, yesterday, accident and emergency units, which he says that he is going to save. We did not even know that he was going to close them again. [Interruption.]
Order.
Iain Gray is going to his conference this weekend. He does not need a Labour conference to change policy—all he has to do is wake up in the morning.
Order.
Here is the figure—[Interruption.] Look—I am happy to talk about U-turns. This is the man—[Interruption.] This is the man who promised Scottish students that he would pay off their student debt and did not do it: a bigger U-turn than Nick Clegg ever carried out.
Here is the figure that matters. Alex Salmond inherited a Scotland with lower unemployment than the rest of the country, and he leaves a Scotland with higher unemployment than the rest of the country. Why is that? It is because of four SNP-Tory budgets. That is why the former Tory leader over on the Tory benches once said:
“Let us face it: the next best thing to a Tory Government is a Government that does what the Tories tell it to do”.—[Official Report, 4 February 2009; c 14667.]
He was speaking about the First Minister, was he not?
Somewhere in the economic reversals that have undoubtedly been suffered over the past few years, there might be some accountability for Gordon Brown and the Labour Government.
I am fascinated by the idea that Labour’s beloved PFI projects collapsed in Scotland. I have just come across the figures for England under Labour. Between 2007-08 and 2008-9, in England the value of PFI projects fell by 85 per cent, because one of the unfortunate things is that, during a credit crunch induced by Labour, we cannot even deal on the expensive PFI projects because the banks will not advance the money. That is why the £14 billion of capital projects organised by John Swinney as the finance secretary have led to eight months of rising employment in Scotland and three months of falling unemployment, and it is one reason why the Labour Party will never be trusted with the charge of the Scottish Government ever again.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2963)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
This week in Scotland, two men were convicted of a sickening sexual assault on a woman. Horrifically, two young boys aged 10 and six were forced to observe and participate. Those men have received a prison sentence of six years. How long will they actually serve in jail?
As Annabel Goldie well knows, that is a matter for the courts and other authorities. In this country, the determination is not made by politicians, and I hope that that would be the case under any Administration. The separation between the implementation of the justice system and the political process is highly important in any society.
I hope that we jointly welcome as a Parliament the fulfilment of our responsibilities. Our responsibilities have been to set a legislative framework that, Annabel Goldie will remember from last autumn, significantly strengthened both the range of penalties and the ability to prosecute a range of sexual and other offences. That is the responsibility of the Parliament, and it is a responsibility that is being discharged.
What is astonishing and deeply troubling is the First Minister’s ignorance on an issue that is so serious. Let me tell him the answer to my question, because answer there is. The men involved might get out after three years but will definitely get out after four.
In the First Minister’s 2007 manifesto, which I have here, he promised to end automatic early release. In the 12 years of this Parliament, the Conservatives have repeatedly tried to end automatic early release, and on every occasion we have been voted down by the Scottish National Party, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, so I will not take any lectures from the First Minister on protecting victims. The public is sick and tired of political parties doing cartwheels and U-turns on pledges and commitments. Will the First Minister explain why he broke his 2007 manifesto commitment and why he has nothing meaningful to say on this serious issue?
This is not a lecture, just a gentle chiding. Annabel Goldie, when she condemned the other three parties’ positions on automatic early release, might have mentioned to the chamber that it was a Conservative Government that introduced automatic early release in Scotland.
The sentencing structure in Scotland has substantially improved, as have victim support and consultation with victims on future sentences. The biggest statistic on criminal justice, which I hope Annabel Goldie and I can agree about, is that we have a 32-year low in recorded crime in Scotland. I believe that that is due to the 1,000 additional police officers, which this Government, supported by others in the chamber, put on to the streets and into the communities of Scotland.
The Ballater Business Association invited the First Minister to meet it on Deeside, as its members face some of the biggest rates rises in Scotland under the SNP Government. It waited for a month for a reply from the First Minister, and his spokesman told The Press and Journal just six days ago that he had not ruled out a visit. However, yesterday, the First Minister changed his mind and refused to meet the association. What is he worried about?
I point out that Jim Mather, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, has met the Ballater Business Association. When he did so, he was able to tell its members that the range of help for businesses in Scotland is unrivalled and unprecedented. Chief among those measures, in my view, is the small business bonus, which has benefited 80,000 small businesses throughout Scotland. Those businesses either have had the rates burden totally removed from them or have had it substantially reduced. I believe that that was the right policy and that the Liberal Democrats were wrong to vote against it. As the Government, we shall maintain the small business bonus throughout the next session of Parliament.
I was at the meeting in Ballater last September to which the First Minister sent the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism. It proved to be a complete and unmitigated disaster. Ballater businesses faced increases in business rates of between 80 and 140 per cent, yet the Government did nothing to protect them. Sixteen of those businesses used to pay £27,000, but they now pay £87,000. Thousands of individual businesses throughout Scotland face the same problem and the Government has ignored them. Jim Mather told the meeting that businesses should appeal, but Grampian’s independent assessor, who was also at the meeting, said that there was no point.
Bryn Wayte of the Ballater Business Association owns a small bookshop in Ballater. His rates bill went up by £5,000 last year. He is angry that the First Minister is so dismissive and has not answered the association’s questions. Will the First Minister even now change his mind again and agree to meet seriously threatened businesses in Ballater?
I am rather puzzled by Mr Rumbles’s description of the meeting. Mr Mather received a letter from the Ballater Business Association thanking him for the constructive nature of the meeting. I hesitate to say it, but anything untoward that happened at the meeting may have had some connection with Mr Rumbles’s presence at it.
Mr Rumbles must understand that 80,000 businesses throughout Scotland are delighted that the Government, supported by others in the chamber, pushed through the small business bonus, giving unprecedented support to small businesses across the country. None of those people will understand—because he never talks about it—why Mike Rumbles led his troops in a vote against the small business bonus.
When? This year?
I am told that Liberals did not do that this year.
Well, when?
Order, Mr Purvis.
They did it when the small business bonus came before the Parliament.
That is just not true.
What we are hearing from the Liberal Democrats is that all their votes against the small business bonus and against everything else that the Government has done should be swept aside because this year, in the budget debate, they finally came to their senses and supported the Government. That is why Tavish Scott, in his Holyrood magazine interview, complimented the Government and said what a fine job we are doing.
Last Wednesday, Alex Neil MSP made a one-off payment of £700,000 to the City of Edinburgh Council to plug the gap in the city’s employability services. At the Blindcraft demonstration on Thursday, the same minister pledged to do all that he could to save Blindcraft and suggested that the money could be used for Blindcraft workers. This week, Blindcraft staff were told that the factory will be closed at the end of the month. Will the First Minister step in at the 11th hour and save Blindcraft as he saved Glencraft in Aberdeen?
I am sure that the member was pleased with the result at Glencraft in Aberdeen. That was an excellent agreement between the council, the Government and the private sector.
As the Minister for Housing and Communities told the lobbyists, we would be extremely pleased to facilitate effort and do everything that we can to help the workers at the present moment.
We cannot assume responsibility for the City of Edinburgh Council. We regret that the proposal that was put forward did not come to fruition. The Minister for Housing and Communities will continue to be receptive to any concepts.
I remember that, during the debates around Glencraft, Labour Party members acted as they are acting at the present moment. However, I fail to remember any welcome once action was taken and the jobs were saved, which speaks volumes for how the Labour Party regards employment and jobs in Scotland—something for the politics, but nothing to welcome when achievements are made.
Child Trafficking
4. To ask the First Minister what resources the Scottish Government has put in place to detect and prevent child trafficking. (S3F-2968)
We place the highest priority on eradicating that despicable crime and supporting the victims. That is why we have given an additional £4 million to the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, to help it to address trafficking and other organised crime. We have strengthened the support to victims through annual funding of £50,000 and an innovative pilot scheme that will provide guardians to the victims of child trafficking. We have also put in place comprehensive new guidance to support the child trafficking and child protection units.
Does the First Minister agree that one of the major advances in Scotland is the pioneering multi-agency resources service—MARS—which is a child-protection hub and is the first of its kind in the United Kingdom? It allows professionals from various agencies to work together more effectively and share expertise and best practice. However, as a recent report by Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People highlighted, more focused preparation is needed to deal with trafficked children’s specific and complex needs. How does the Scottish Government plan to take forward the key recommendations that are contained in that important report?
The multi-agency resource service is typical of the approach that is taken by this Government to strengthen the protection of and support for our most vulnerable children and young people. The Scottish Government is now providing £500,000 of funding over three years to MARS, at the University of Stirling.
That spirit of partnership and focus on practical solutions will govern how we address the recommendations by Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People on child trafficking. We have already taken action to address many of the recommendations and will reflect further on all the findings in the report, and will be in close consultation with our key partners in trafficking and child protection.
The First Minister will be aware of a report by the Equal Opportunities Committee on prostitution and trafficking and of the fact that there have been no prosecutions for child trafficking in Scotland. I know that there is a question about numbers, but it seems to me that, if one child is trafficked into this country, that is one too many.
Given that the Government does not fund all the child trafficking voluntary organisations that work at the coal face, what action will the First Minister take to reinforce laws in order to bring forward prosecutions in child trafficking, where appropriate?
I am sure that the range of actions that I set out in response to Christine Grahame will convince the member of the Government’s intent and seriousness. Incidentally, all those measures have, rightly, received support across the chamber. That applies to the legal framework, support to the victims, the comprehensive new guidance on child trafficking and child protection and, of course, the additional funding to the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, to help it address this enormous problem.
I absolutely agree that one child in such circumstances is one child too many.
End-year Flexibility
5. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding end-year flexibility. (S3F-2966)
The Scottish Government has made regular representations to the United Kingdom Government over end-year flexibility, most recently when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer ahead of the UK budget. As the member will no doubt be aware, we also joined with the other devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales to make clear to the Treasury our position that we felt that its actions were not acceptable.
Our consistent view is that any funds that are intended for use by the Scottish Government for the benefit of the Scottish people should be used for that purpose and should not be purloined by Her Majesty’s Treasury. I am sure that Mr Whitton will agree that the situation simply underlines the shortcomings of the present financial arrangement and the Treasury rules in the UK, and the need for Scotland to assume full responsibility for its financial affairs.
I thank the First Minister for his answer, but do not think that he will expect me to agree with the last part of it.
In November last year, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, told the Finance Committee that devolved Administrations were not “just another Whitehall department”, and that they would be treated differently in dealing with end-year flexibility. He said:
“I certainly do not intend that we would take away underspends at the end of any given year.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 25 November 2010; c 2806.]
However, in true Liberal style, he has now done an amazing U-turn. In a letter to John Swinney on 28 February, he said:
“I have decided to abolish the EYF scheme and cancel all existing stocks. This decision applies equally to UK departments and devolved administrations.”
That will cost Scotland around £23 million. Will the First Minister join me in condemning that flagrant act of grand larceny? What will the Scottish Government do to prevent that £23 million from simply disappearing into Treasury coffers?
I refer David Whitton to my answer to his first question. It is exactly because we do not have the power to prevent that that we want the financial powers that will mean that we are not beholden in any sense to Her Majesty’s Treasury. I hope that he can make the connection between the thing that he condemns and the thing that he refuses to support.
The issue was a major topic of conversation at the joint ministerial meeting with the devolved Administrations. In terms of justice, we drew the Deputy Prime Minister’s attention to the Danny Alexander quotations put forward by David Whitton on the reversal of the UK Government’s position. I quite agree that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has a lot of explaining to do to reconcile those quotations. We argued as strongly as the other devolved Administrations, which we supported in our joint declaration, but I suppose that the one small consolation is that the penalties for Northern Ireland and Wales are much greater. That is why we gave them such vigorous support.
Incidentally, if we had followed Andy Kerr, if Mr Swinney had paid attention to him and if we had left the EYF balances unused in the Scottish account, the Government and the people would not have lost £23 million; we would have lost £1,500 million to Her Majesty’s Treasury. [Interruption.]
Order.
Scottish Fuel Poverty Forum
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on how it has engaged with the Scottish fuel poverty forum on energy policy since the forum was re-established. (S3F-2974)
The Scottish fuel poverty forum was re-established by the Administration to provide advice to ministers on how to tackle fuel poverty and to meet the 2016 commitment. I thank the Rev Graham Blount for his work as chair of the forum.
Officials regularly meet the forum, and its advice has informed the energy assistance package and its development, such as the extension of help to families, the terminally ill and people with severe disability. Under this Administration, heating measures, complete systems and boilers have been delivered to more than 48,000 households. We announced a further £12.5 million of funding last week, which local councils will use to help a further 200,000 households to make their homes warmer through improved insulation.
In 2008, members supported a motion that I lodged that called for the re-establishment of an independent fuel poverty forum. As the First Minister has said, the Government was right to act on that, and Graham Blount’s appointment as the forum’s first chair was excellent.
However, for the forum to be effective, trust and the sharing of information are vital. In his resignation letter to the minister on 10 March, Mr Blount made it clear that
“neither the Forum nor I as its independent Chair enjoy enough of your confidence to fulfil our agreed terms of reference”.
Why was the forum kept in the dark at its meeting on 3 March about imminent budget and other changes that affect the energy assistance package? Does the First Minister find it acceptable that the forum has consistently been denied information that would allow it to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the money that is being spent on various fuel poverty schemes? Does he recognise the anger that his Government’s treatment of the forum and its out-going chair has generated among those who are involved in the fight against fuel poverty in this country, and the potential damage that that could do to the success of that fight?
Liam McArthur is wrong on a number of fronts.
It is quite clear from the Rev Graham Blount’s letter that he doubts the effectiveness of the schemes that relate to the £12.5 million for local councils. I point out that that sum is a successor to the £10 million for the universal home insulation scheme that was launched last year and voted on by the Parliament. The argument about targeting rather than having a widespread scheme is a perfectly legitimate one to debate, but the Parliament decided last year to implement that scheme. Most people would welcome the fact that the scheme has been extended in the coming year.
The second piece of misinformation from Liam McArthur is the idea that there was an impact on the central programme. That is not true. It was an announcement of additional money for local government for the universal home insulation scheme.
It is true that many people in the field are deeply worried about the budgetary situation. Given the £1,300 million cutback in the Scottish budget, they could hardly be anything other than that. However, some people will conclude that the sustaining of the energy efficiency package and various other schemes in Scotland is a world away from the 69 per cent reduction in the equivalent scheme that has been carried through by the Liberal Democrats in office south of the border.
I, too, thank Graham Blount for his work in conjunction with the Scottish Government to alleviate fuel poverty. We remain at the mercy of rising energy prices and a United Kingdom Government that seems determined to punish the poorest through welfare changes. Does the First Minister agree that, if the Liberal Democrats are seriously committed to reducing fuel poverty, they must persuade their UK colleagues to take action on those fronts or to give the Parliament the powers to act for the poorest in society?
I agree with that. [Interruption.] Given that there are limited and isolated discordant notes in the chamber, I point out that the reduction in the scheme in England is from £350 million to £110 million, which is a 69 per cent reduction. That is why, despite the requirement and wish that we all have to do more, people are encouraged that we have sustained action in Scotland, even against the cutbacks that are being inflicted on this nation from Westminster. I suppose that the only dividing line relates to those of us in the Parliament—and a majority in the country—who will soon take the opportunity to do something about that.